Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Public Service Agreements

Mark Francois: What work his Department has carried out to date on the public service agreements that will form part of the 2002 spending review.

Andrew Robathan: What work his Department has carried out to date on the public service agreements that will form part of the 2002 spending review.

Andrew Smith: The Cabinet Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, monitors Departments' performance against their public service agreements. Departments will propose a new set of PSAs covering the period 2004 to 2006 as part of the 2002 spending review decisions, which will be published at the end of the review.

Mark Francois: The Chancellor's PSAs cover a wide range of Departments, including the Department of Health. From his perspective, can he or one of his Ministers please explain why, if the Treasury's claims that it is putting ever more money into the health service are correct, waiting times in accident and emergency units are going up instead of down?

Andrew Smith: The progress that we are making on the national health service in implementing our public service agreements and targets is evidenced by the fact that, as we said we would, we cut waiting lists by 100,000 and have increased the number of nurses by 17,000 and the number of doctors by 6,700. Also, some 600,000 more operations are taking place in the NHS and we have the biggest hospital-building programme in its history. This Government and this party would not follow the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who describes the NHS as a "Stalinist creation" and wants to bring in charges.

Andrew Robathan: May I quote from objective 1 for the Cabinet Office in the public service agreements for 2001 to 2004? That objective is
	"to work with No. 10, Departments and others to secure . . . information age government."
	Given all the fine words that we get from the Government about freedom of information, as they are the only Government who have ever refused to comply with the findings of the parliamentary ombudsman on the code of practice on access to Government information, are not these public service agreements yet another example of fine words but absolutely no substance in reality?

Andrew Smith: Not at all. We are complying with the public service agreements and our requirements under the relevant codes. The evidence is there in the extra investment and extra quality of services that the people of this country are seeing.

John McFall: I welcome this innovative feature of the spending review, which was introduced in 1998. However, we are aware that not all the money allocated last year was spent. Indeed, I think that £7 billion had to be spent. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the public service agreements will help that money to be spent, so that we can get delivery on the ground? There was also a plethora of targets. Can he assure us that we have targets not merely for the sake of targets, but for delivery at the end of the day?

Andrew Smith: On the architecture of the public service agreements, I echo what my hon. Friend says in welcoming this innovation, as did the National Audit Office, which described the introduction of public service agreement targets and, in particular, the move to outcome-focused targets as
	"an ambitious programme of change which puts the United Kingdom among the leaders in performance measurement practice."
	I also agree with him that it is delivery on the ground that matters. That is why we realigned the targets more closely with the key priorities in the last spending review and are working with the delivery unit in No. 10 and with the Departments to ensure that promises made are promises kept.

James Plaskitt: What prospect would there be of delivery on any single one of these public service agreements if it were Government policy to get public spending down to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product?

Andrew Smith: There would be no prospect of such progress. Of course, that is the policy of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).

Michael Howard: How astonishing it is, in view of the importance of the question, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should run away from it and leave it to the Chief Secretary to answer. In relation to achieving the aim of the public service agreement on health, what importance do the Government attach to their policy of raising spending on health care to the European average by 2005?

Andrew Smith: It is very important indeed. That is why that policy was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Question Time last Wednesday and yesterday, and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in Monday's debate on public services. It is the Government's policy.

Michael Howard: In that case, will the Chief Secretary answer one of the questions that I asked the Chancellor on Monday, namely, does that mean the European average as it was in 2000, as it is in 2001 or as it will be in 2005?

Andrew Smith: If I recall correctly, the most recent figure for the European average is from 1998, when it was 7.9 per cent. The Prime Minister committed us yesterday to achieving 8 per cent. in 2005. We shall achieve that target.

Michael Howard: Is that the sum of the Government's ambition—to reach by 2005 the European average as it was in 1998? Does not that show the utter confusion at the heart of the Government's policy on health? Is not it extraordinary that they make a song and dance about that target when people in this country are dying from illnesses that they would survive if they lived elsewhere? Is not the meddlesome Chancellor at the heart of the mess?

Andrew Smith: I think that the shadow Chancellor is trying to rerun Monday's debate when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) comprehensively demolished him. When challenged on whether he would keep the NHS free at the point of need, he would not confirm that. He remains committed, as he said in the last Parliament,
	"to reduce the proportion of national output taken by the state towards 35 per cent."
	That would inflict incalculable damage on our national health service, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman described as a "Stalinist creation".

Working Families Tax Credit

Huw Edwards: How many people in Wales receive the working families tax credit.

Harry Cohen: What assessment he has made of the impact on child poverty in (a) London and (b) other parts of the United Kingdom of the working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement.

Gordon Brown: Seventy-six thousand families in Wales and 95,000 families in London are among the 1.3 million United Kingdom families who benefit from the working families tax credit. Together with other policies, it has taken 1.2 million children out of poverty.
	On Monday, the House will debate the Tax Credits Bill, which will create from 2003 the working tax credit and the child tax credit. Final decisions on that will be announced in the Budget. I can confirm that tax credits will disregard maintenance payments for the working tax credit, and that therefore work will pay even more.

Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the WFTC has been a valuable instrument in enabling people to get off benefit and into work, and an important measure against child poverty, for which the Government have not had the credit that they deserve?
	Some small employers, who employ two or three people, have approached me. They are conscious of the problem of administering the WFTC and believe that it might discourage some small employers from taking on, for example, single parents. Will my right hon. Friend consider the administration problems for small employers?

Gordon Brown: That is precisely why the new integrated child credit will streamline the procedures. On my hon. Friend's first point about the success of the WFTC, not only have we taken 1 million children out of poverty, but it is our target to take another million out of poverty in this Parliament. We also aim to ensure that work pays for people who take up jobs.
	There are 170,000 more single parents in work and many more people have been able to take up work because they know that it will pay more than social security benefits. Other countries around the world are considering the policy to ascertain whether they should adapt the same policy.
	I am surprised that the Conservative party, which opposed the minimum wage and the new deal, also opposes the WFTC. After all, Ronald Reagan said of a similar system in the United States:
	"It was the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family and the best job creation measure."

Mr. Speaker: I call Harry Cohen.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Gibb.

Nick Gibb: What is the Chancellor's assessment of the burden on small businesses of paying the benefit through the payroll system? Would not it be better to pay it directly to the homes of those entitled to it?

Gordon Brown: The regulatory impact survey has been applied to the benefit. The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that the measure benefits businesses, which are thereby able to get people to take jobs that they would otherwise not accept. It backs up the minimum wage and makes work pay. It pushes up the wages and take-home pay of the employees especially of small businesses, which might not otherwise be able to attract people. Like the earned income tax credit in the United States, the WFTC has widespread support. Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain are considering the WFTC and France has already introduced a version of it. It is the modern way of combining efficiency in business with fairness for business. It is time that the Conservative party, which opposed the minimum wage and the new deal, started supporting the WFTC.

Edward Davey: Will the Chancellor admit that 43 per cent. of children in London are living in poverty, that London has a higher percentage of families living in poverty than any other region, and that the initial analysis of the impact of the working families tax credit on households in receipt of housing benefit shows that families in London receive less benefit from his policy than families in other regions? As he considers the new policy of an integrated child credit, will he ensure that families and children in London do not lose out?

Gordon Brown: It is true that a report is being prepared on the situation in London. There are 95,000 families in London receiving the working families tax credit, which is a smaller proportion of the population than in the rest of the country. We are examining how to develop the integrated child credit and the employment credit in the future, but the fact is that 95,000 families in London are better off than they would otherwise have been because there is a Labour Government who have adopted the working families tax credit.

Barnett Formula

Hywel Williams: What plans he has to review the method of calculating the Barnett formula.

Andrew Smith: The Government's spending plans have been agreed for the years through to 2004, including allocations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those allocations are governed by the statement of funding policy incorporating the Barnett formula, and that remains the Government's policy.

Hywel Williams: Lord Barnett has said recently, in evidence to the Treasury Committee and in a debate in another place, that the Barnett formula should be replaced by
	"the Barnett Formula Mark II"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 Nov 2001; Vol. 628, c. 228.]
	based on an assessment of need. Will the Chancellor accept that, in the eyes of the people of Wales, the legitimacy of the present formula will continue to decline so long as it is based not on actual need but on an historical assessment of need?

Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that, as well as the increase of almost £2 billion that the National Assembly for Wales received under its Barnett formula allocation, Wales received nearly £100 million a year extra in support of its objective 1 status, which was secured thanks to the efforts of this Government. That is proof of the Government's commitment to Wales. In addition, over the spending review period, Wales shared in the £44 billion increase in non-devolved spending areas such as the police, defence and welfare to work. So, Wales has had a good deal from the spending review, unemployment has fallen there, and we are getting more people into jobs.

Roger Casale: When my right hon. Friend has a chance to look again at the Barnett formula, will he take special account of the needs of areas such as London, where even constituencies such as mine have pockets of deprivation and a need for further measures to overcome social exclusion, especially among the ethnic minority community? What my constituents will notice this year, however, is that, despite a global recession, the Government have been able to deliver a 5.1 per cent. increase in the local government grant. That will help Merton council to keep the streets clean, to work better with the community and to keep the council tax down, in stark contrast to the years in which there were cuts and more cuts under the Tories.

Andrew Smith: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. When we discuss these matters, it is important to remember that, as well as the allocations covered by the Barnett formula, there are other measures that the Government have in place, such as the new deal, the working families tax credit, the child tax credit, the pension credit and the recently announced stamp duty exemptions, all of which help to target extra assistance on the most disadvantaged people in the most disadvantaged areas. My hon. Friend's constituents who are in particular need will benefit from that programme of tax credits, and from the Government's resolve to tackle poverty and get another million children out of poverty.

Manufacturing

Hugo Swire: If he will make a statement on his latest assessment of the state of UK manufacturing.

Gordon Brown: The Government's latest assessment of developments in the manufacturing sector was published in detail in the pre-Budget report. To support manufacturing, not only are interest rates the lowest for 40 years but on Tuesday we published our proposals for a research and development tax credit, and yesterday the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a new best practice initiative involving £20 million. That follows our announcement of further cuts in small corporation taxation, and cuts in capital gains tax, which match the lowest corporation tax rates that this country has seen.

Hugo Swire: Three hundred and fifty thousand manufacturing jobs have already been lost since the right hon. Gentleman became Chancellor. Given that manufacturing investment fell in the last quarter at the fastest rate since the 1970s, how many more jobs does he expect to be lost in manufacturing under his chancellorship?

Gordon Brown: We are doing everything in our power to work with manufacturing industry, and I must remind the hon. Gentleman that more than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost at the beginning of the 1990s, during the recession in which the shadow Chancellor was Employment Secretary and presiding over 15 per cent. interest rates.
	Around the world, as the hon. Gentleman understands, United States manufacturing output has been cut by 6 per cent. There has been an 11 per cent. cut in Japan and cuts of approaching 20 per cent. in Singapore and the Asian economies, which are big manufacturing economies. Here, according to the figures published this morning, there has been a 3 per cent. reduction for manufacturing.
	The difference between us is that we are prepared to take action to achieve what we can with the research and development tax credit, permanent capital allowances, the work of the regional development agencies, the new regional venture capital funds that are being set up and our sponsorship of the new manufacturing apprenticeships in manufacturing industry.
	The division between the two sides here is that we are prepared to take the necessary action. Unfortunately, under the shadow Chancellor's plans the Conservatives would cut public expenditure by £50 billion, so they would be unable to help with training, investment, the regional venture capital funds and the permanent capital allowances.

Bill Olner: My right hon. Friend is right not to take any lessons from the Conservative party on cuts in manufacturing jobs, having suffered the Thatcher years, but may I remind him that there are some short-term manufacturing difficulties post-11 September, particularly in the British aerospace industry? Can he give some short-term moneys to those companies to help them through what I am sure is a blip? There is no doubt that there are difficulties at the moment and they need to be addressed.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in the fortunes of manufacturing industry in his constituency and his region. Yes, we accept that we need to do more to help the aviation industry because of the events of 11 September. Yes, we have given extra assistance to companies in the aerospace industry. The new orders announced for some aerospace companies, including that from the Lockheed Martin consortium, will bring new jobs and new work to those areas, which is important for the long term.
	I must tell my hon. Friend that output in food and drink, chemicals, cars and transport is up—our big problem is the information technology and computer sector, where there have been falls of nearly 20 per cent. in America and other countries, and also in Britain—so the manufacturing picture is not as bleak for some sectors as it is presented from the other side of the House.
	It is important that we do what we can to help manufacturing industry and one way we have been able to help is getting interest rates down seven times this year. They are now 4 per cent., but 10 years ago, in a similar world slowdown, they stood at 15 per cent. under the shadow Chancellor's policies.

Matthew Taylor: The Chancellor is somewhat selective with his figures. Is not it a fact that the internationally exposed sectors are all in trouble in this country and have been since well before 11 September, that engineering and allied industries are experiencing a fall in output of nearly 10 per cent. compared with just a year ago and that nearly 400,000 people have lost their jobs in those sectors since 1997? He has said on at least a couple of occasions, but not in this place, that he believes that the fundamentals do not justify the current exchange rate. Does he still take that view and is not that the real background to many problems in manufacturing?

Gordon Brown: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, yes. In answer to the second part, a number of problems affect manufacturing industry, as he describes. We are dealing with world trade, which rose by 12 per cent. last year, but is rising by only 1 per cent. this year. It is hardly surprising that what he calls internationally exposed industries are affected by a slowdown in world trade.
	I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, although the IT sector in particular has been hit because of what has happened to the American IT industry, car output and that of the transport sector in Britain have been going up. Over the past year, the increase for cars is 7 per cent. That is a means by which we not only sell to the rest of the world but provide for the domestic market.
	The question is, do we have a Government who are prepared to take action where they can to help those industries that are in difficulty? The answer is that we are doing everything we can with permanent capital allowances, help for new investment, help for training and the work of the regional development agencies, which, as Conservative Members have acknowledged, help in individual industries. Where there are redundancies, the rapid reaction forces are moving in to help. People get jobs as quickly as possible. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) laughs at the rapid reaction forces. Of course, under the Conservative party there would be no help for people who are made redundant. He wants to abolish the new deal; he thinks it is a waste of money.
	The Conservatives would not have implemented the minimum wage or the working families tax credit and the hon. Gentleman would do nothing to help those people faced with redundancy. The difference between us is clear: we are on the side of people facing difficulty, but the Conservatives would do nothing to help.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in less than three weeks there will be a real opportunity for British manufacturers to export across Europe? A single eurozone will make it very easy for small and medium-sized as well as large enterprises to export in a single currency.
	Is it not a shame that yesterday, when the euro preparations group discussed preparations for the euro in the House with manufacturing leaders from the south-west, London and Northern Ireland, the Conservatives again refused to take their place at the table?

Gordon Brown: Given that 50 per cent. of our trade is with the euro area, it is important for us to maximise the advantages. That is one of the reasons why more than a million business leaflets have been produced to help small businesses prepare for the introduction of the euro. We will continue to do what we can to work with business during the preparations.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that it is unfortunate that every political party in the House, from the smallest to the largest, has been prepared to join our euro preparations committee—an all-party committee of the House—except one. The one party that refused—I see an Opposition Member nodding, thinking about why it should have joined—is the Conservative party.
	That is because the Conservative party appears to oppose the euro in principle. When the shadow Chancellor was Foreign Secretary, he said he would never say never; but when he was standing for the leadership of the Conservative party, he said that his position on a single currency was that he was opposed to it "in principle". Even if the economic benefits were proven, the shadow Chancellor would be opposed to the euro in principle. That is the state into which the Conservative party has fallen.

Howard Flight: The Financial Secretary has confirmed something that I raised on 19 July—that, in addition to the direct costs to industry of the climate change levy, there will be VAT windfall gains of £30 million per annum which will not be recycled in national insurance.
	Is the Chancellor satisfied that effectively bribing industry with about two thirds of its own money and the token appointment of yet another tsar are the right policies for the industry in the face of a 4.2 per cent. fall in output over the past year—not a 3 per cent. fall; the latest statistics show a 4.2 per cent. slump—and the worst recession for industry since 1991?

Gordon Brown: I was wondering when the hon. Gentleman would appear. The Flight memorandum that we discussed on Monday had to be discussed without his being able to play a part.
	The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when we announced the climate change levy we cut employers' national insurance contributions in every company in the country. We therefore recycled the revenues gained from the levy: there is no gain to the Treasury. We have also set up a renewables fund to help people progress to more energy-efficient industry.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's general position and his expression of concern about manufacturing industry, we must remember that his is the party which not only brought us 15 per cent. interest rates and lost us a million manufacturing jobs, but would refuse to do anything—through public expenditure or public investment—to help manufacturing industry. And as for the policy on Europe and helping manufacturing industry—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we will move on now.

Tax Credits

Stephen McCabe: If he will make a statement on how integrated tax credits will support families.

Dawn Primarolo: In 2003, the Government will be introducing a new credit for families with children, the child tax credit. It will provide a seamless stream of support for families, integrating the income-related elements of support for children, paid directly to the main carer. The child tax credit will be paid to families with children, whether the adults in the family are in work or not. It will build on the foundation of child benefit.

Stephen McCabe: Does my hon. Friend agree that integrated tax credits represent the single greatest advance for ordinary people since the introduction of family allowance itself? Is this not the essence of Labour in action—a Government who believe that those who can work should work, that their children should enjoy the fruits of their honest toil, and that all children have the right to grow up free from the scourge of poverty? Are not those who seek to frustrate such measures committing a direct assault on the interests of ordinary people and their children?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right and I am sure that he would be surprised if I did not agree with him. The Opposition presided over a massive growth in child poverty and unemployment, and the key aspects of the Government's policy in tackling poverty are, first, to deal with low pay; secondly, to deal with the problem of workless households; and thirdly, investment in education and health, which will tackle all the elements of poverty in our society and ensure that children and their families are lifted out of that poverty.

David Laws: Does the Minister agree with Andrew Dilnott of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that it is remarkable that the Treasury has yet to publish estimates of its two new tax credits, even though in a previous precedent it did publish estimates of the cost of the new tax credits? Why has it failed to do so in that case?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with the gentleman he mentioned. The Tax Credits Bill, which will be debated by the House on Monday, will put in place the framework for a clear, simple, transparent method of delivering income to families, especially those in greatest need. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, the question of rates and tapers will be a subject for the Budget statement.

Jane Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas such as my constituency, where the cost of living is high and unemployment is low, families who struggle on low incomes have a harder time of it than those in many other parts of the country? Does she agree that the seamless and common framework of assessment for the new credit will remove the stigma attached to receiving benefits that does exist, especially in such areas as Reading, East?

Dawn Primarolo: The child credit will be paid to families with children regardless of whether the adult is in or out of work, thus removing the stigma. It will also ensure that those families have one point of application for those payments. It will be precisely calculated to ensure that those with the lowest incomes will get the maximum benefit. It is strange that on such an important change to the system of support for families, especially those with children, the official Opposition apparently do not have any views.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents welcome the child tax credit, but I am concerned by the shadow Chancellor's view that £50 billion could be wiped off—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will not be able to answer that point.

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the House has noted that in the cuts that the shadow Chancellor wishes to see, both in the public sector and in benefits—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Railtrack (Successor Company)

Alan Beith: Whether the borrowings of the successor company to Railtrack will be accounted for as public borrowing.

Andrew Smith: I see no prospect of such an outcome.

Alan Beith: Is it not a condition of Treasury agreement that that borrowing should be off the Government's books? How, then, could the permanent secretary go around the City telling people that the successor company would have a BBB star rating? Is not that an implicit guarantee?

Andrew Smith: As public sector net borrowing is, as it says, borrowing by the public sector, and as we do not foresee the successor company—whatever it is—being in the public sector, I see no prospect of the outcome being counted as public sector borrowing.

John Bercow: So far as the impact of the dismantling of Railtrack on public borrowing is concerned, the Chief Secretary oozes smug complacency. Given that the Confederation of British Industry, the Ernst and Young ITEM Club, Franklin Mutual, Legal and General, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the state of Wisconsin, to name but six, have all warned that the Railtrack fiasco will make it more expensive to attract private capital, why does he not now accept that present policies risk the possibility of financial famine and the virtual certainty of increased borrowing, higher taxes and further damage to a transport system which is already described by the Government's own advisers as the worst in the European Union?

Andrew Smith: On smug complacency, the hon. Gentleman would do well to look in the mirror. As for the impact of what has happened at Railtrack on credit ratings, I shall quote the view of a leading credit rating agency. Standard and Poor published a document on 23 October that dealt with precisely these matters, in which it stated that
	"the Railtrack situation had no direct credit implications for rated PFI projects".
	Moreover, the Government are attracting private investment into public-private partnerships and private finance initiative projects of all types. That includes our commitment to invest in our railways, in line with the 10-year plan that the Government have set out.

Michael Jack: If Railtrack's credit rating is so good, why did the Minister for Transport recently suggest that the Government are considering reducing expenditure on the roads programme to subsidise expenditure on rail? Is that correct? If it is, by how much will expenditure on roads be reduced, and what will be the damage to the roads programme?

Andrew Smith: I am confident that our plans for rail can and will be financed within the 10-year plan that we have already set out, and out of the £180 billion that the Government have committed to transport. In contrast, the Conservative party and the shadow Chancellor at the time of the general election explicitly refused to match our commitment on transport investment.

Manufacturing

Paul Holmes: What representations he has received on the change in output in manufacturing industry over the last year.

Mark Field: What recent representations he has received from United Kingdom manufacturing exporters; and if he will make a statement.

Ruth Kelly: The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers frequently receive representations from manufacturers and all areas of business on a wide range of economic issues. We listen carefully and value their insights—as we did, for instance, at yesterday's manufacturing summit.

Paul Holmes: At meetings with union representatives and managers in my constituency of Chesterfield, I receive representations regarding the destruction of manufacturing industry. This year alone, three major traditional manufacturers—Sterling Tubes, Chesterfield Cylinders and Dema Glass—have either gone into administration or been closed down altogether. Those firms have told me that the overvalued pound against the euro cripples exports. Managers from Toyota at Derby have said that they can see no point in expanding that successful plant while there is no prospect of Britain entering the eurozone. The people to whom I have spoken want to know when the Chancellor will do something about ending the pound's ludicrous overvaluation compared with the euro.

Ruth Kelly: The Government's policy on the euro is clear. The most important thing that we can do for manufacturing is to provide a stable economic climate. By making the Bank of England independent and putting in place tough new fiscal rules, we have taken the necessary measures to ensure that. Artificially to manipulate the exchange rate of the pound as the hon. Gentleman suggests would be ludicrous. Quick fixes are not the solution for manufacturing—the solution is a stable economic climate. The Government are prepared to take the action that manufacturers so desperately need. That is why we held the manufacturing summit yesterday, at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced a further £20 million to help spread best practice within manufacturing.

Mark Field: The Chancellor assured us last week that we could expect overall growth in the economy to be 2.25 per cent. in 2001. However, after four consecutive quarters of technical recession in the manufacturing sector, will the Economic Secretary say what level of growth in that sector she anticipates in the forthcoming year?

Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, we gave those figures in the pre-Budget report. We are expecting an increase in manufacturing output during next year. Of course, an open economy like the UK's cannot insulate itself from a global slowdown, especially when that slowdown affects countries such as the US, Japan and Europe. However, this country is better placed than any other in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to weather that international storm. That is why we are confident that manufacturing will continue to prosper in the future, and why we are taking measures now to ensure that manufacturing productivity and growth increase.

Nigel Beard: Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of manufacturing depends, crucially, on the rate of innovation? In that context, what responses have been received from business and industry for the proposed research and development tax credit for larger companies?

Ruth Kelly: The research and development tax credit, which the pre-Budget report announced would go out to further consultation, has been widely welcomed, particularly by the Confederation of British Industry. Digby Jones has said that it will make a very useful contribution. Of course, innovation is vital in raising productivity, particularly in the manufacturing sector. That is why we propose to extend the research and development tax credit throughout industry, with big companies benefiting as well as small and medium-sized enterprises. It is why we put in place 40 per cent. first year capital allowances for investment in plant and machinery. It is also why we are giving 100 per cent. capital allowances to all small firms that invest in information technology. The only way to enhance our productivity and close the productivity gap with our European and United States neighbours is through innovation and skills.

David Kidney: At the strategic level, does my hon. Friend accept that all the many welcome measures taken by the Treasury over the past four years to help small and medium-sized manufacturers may have sidelined the big companies which, after all, provide the growth and activity for those smaller companies? Does she therefore agree that the proposal for the new research and development tax credit for larger companies is a very welcome sign of a more inclusive approach to what I call the whole manufacturing family?

Ruth Kelly: Certainly, the extension of the research and development tax credits to all companies, large or small, will be welcomed across industry, and has already been welcomed by the CBI. Furthermore, our corporation tax reforms, which have been taking place over the five Budgets since the Government came to power in 1997, have slashed the corporation tax bills of manufacturers across the board. We now have the lowest corporation tax rates in the history of the United Kingdom. Overall, the United Kingdom has the lowest corporation tax rate of any major industrialised country. That is good news for manufacturers, big or small.

Nicholas Winterton: The Economic Secretary will know that aerospace is an important part of our manufacturing base and has, historically, made a massive contribution to exports. She will be aware that, sadly, in recent months there have been about 40,000 redundancies in the industry, in firms such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems. Do the Government have any plans to assist the industry during its current problems so that it will have a skilled work force when there is an upturn?

Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government are committed to the future of the aerospace industry and have been helping the sector through direct assistance and also by means of the rapid response taskforce, which assists people who become unemployed. Of course, the aerospace industry has been particularly hard hit following the events of 11 September. We must now ensure that it has an environment in which it can restructure and develop. We are committed to working towards that. It is not all gloom and doom on the aerospace front, however. Recent contracts that have been won, such as the Lockheed Martin contract, will bring some welcome help to the employees and the company involved.

Environmental Protection

Paddy Tipping: If he will make a statement on the measures in his pre-Budget report which enhance and protect the environment.

Paul Boateng: In keeping with the Government's commitment for taxation to reflect environmental impacts, the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget report a series of environmentally based measures and consultations designed to protect and enhance our environment.

Paddy Tipping: The pre-Budget report contains important measures for moving towards a more sustainable energy policy, but will my right hon. Friend tell us when the long-awaited report on combined heat and power will be published so that the agreed targets can be met? Will he look closely at proposals put to him on coal mine methane development? If we could harness that we really would be in a win-win situation.

Paul Boateng: We are considering carefully with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support might be offered on combined heat and power. DEFRA will be publishing a CHP strategy in the coming months. We are committed to CHP, which has an important role to play. We shall certainly also take into account the outcome of the performance and innovation unit's energy review.
	On coal mine methane, we await a response from the industry to our request for information on the potential environmental benefits of that form of power. Also important is energy from coppicing, in which Members on both sides of the House have a particular interest, and we believe that the climate change levy exemption and the renewables obligation will provide a significant stimulus to that renewable form of energy.

Tim Loughton: If the Minister is so pleased with the Government's green record, can he explain why last week the Government's own greening government report, produced the day before the pre-Budget Report, revealed that all Departments had signally failed to reduce greenhouse emissions? The increase in energy was as great as 77 per cent. in the Department of Health, while the Minister's own Department has increased energy consumption during the past year by as much as 23 per cent., as well as failing to reduce hardwood usage and failing on recycling targets. Is it not time that the Government put their own house in order, rather than preaching to others and piling millions of ill-targeted taxes on to businesses?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is plain wrong in his view of the impact of those taxes on businesses. He knows—as do Members on both sides of the House—that the climate change levy was devised and crafted with the closest co-operation of business. He also knows of the real benefits that have been gained by business as a result of the climate change levy, but he is absolutely right to point out that Departments should take a lead in this area. We are determined to do better. There is no room for complacency. This is a challenge we all face together.

World Development Goals

Helen Jones: What recent discussions he has had with other Finance Ministers on progress towards a meeting the 2015 world development goals.

Gordon Brown: I used recent international meetings to push for greater efforts to achieve the 2015 goals. We have proposed a $50 billion international development fund under a new compact between developed and developing countries, and I hope that our proposal will engender an all-party consensus in the House.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the personal interest that he has taken in the matter—it is a refreshing change from the previous Administration. My right hon. Friend will accept that achieving many of those targets will depend on an increase in aid, among other things. Can he tell me when he expects this country's aid budget to reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product? That is something that many of my constituents, even in the poorest areas, would like to see, as a sign of our commitment to the worst-off people in the world.

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that she takes a tremendous personal interest in both the debt relief campaign and the work on international development led by churches and others in her constituency. When we came into power the development aid budget was 0.27 per cent. Under this spending round, it is rising to 0.33 per cent. In the pre-Budget statement, I said that we envisaged a substantial increase in overseas development in the next spending round and a rise in the proportion of aid in our national income. That is why we made the proposal for an international development fund involving $50 billion. Its aim would be to halve poverty between now and 2015; to cut infant mortality by two thirds; and to ensure that every child in the world enjoyed primary schooling by 2015, instead of the present situation in which, this morning, 120 million children were not able to attend school.
	We are asking other countries to join us in that. Negotiations will take place in the run-up to the finance for development conference. That goes hand in hand with our proposals on debt relief, where 24 countries now enjoy up to $50 billion of debt relief.

Vincent Cable: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer support the views of the senior management of the International Monetary Fund, especially Ann Kruger, the vice-president, who argued last week that seriously indebted developing countries should enter the equivalent of bankruptcy proceedings to facilitate a rapid write-off of commercial and official debt? Do the British Government agree with her?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two debates that are taking place. One is about whether, in our crisis prevention and crisis resolution measures, we as an international community look to a new system of international bankruptcy proceedings. The managing director of the IMF, Hans Kohler, has suggested that we need to consider that issue in far more detail because our crisis resolution measures are not good enough.
	How we can help those countries that do not have a sustainable exit from debt relief is a separate issue. The answer is that other countries should follow what we have done, which is to provide 100 per cent. debt relief for debts that were incurred in the past, and that we do more through the international institutions to reduce debt. That is how we expect to proceed. Twenty-four countries now have debt relief. Perhaps another 10 could receive debt relief if they moved out of conflict. Under our proposals, it is possible for $100 billion in debt relief to be provided.

Andy Reed: I welcome the Chancellor's commitment to reducing debt. However, is he aware of my concern and those of other debt campaigners that the problem for those countries that are currently going through the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, and those that would wish to do so in the near future, is that even the World Bank has suggested that their future economic sustainability may mean that they will not be able to meet their current targets? Will he ensure that that issue is raised in future discussions with other Finance Ministers? Will he use his influence with the IMF and the World Bank to ensure that those programmes work for the poorest?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is chairman of the all-party committee on such matters. The work that has been done by all hon. Members is much appreciated. We agreed at Ottawa that there would be greater flexibility in the award of debt relief to countries, especially taking into account the fall in commodity prices that has affected Africa in particular. We therefore agreed that, at the point of completion, there will be more flexibility to enable countries to get a sustainable exit from the debts that they have incurred.
	The fact of the matter is that four years ago only one country was likely to receive debt relief; now, as a result of a decision made on another African country last week, 24 have got debt relief. The next stage is for post-conflict countries to get the debt relief that they are due, which would mean that we would achieve our target of $100 billion in debt relief. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that more will have to be done if we are to have a virtuous circle of debt reduction, poverty reduction and sustainable development, and that is why the focus must now also be on the 2015 development targets.

Euro

Ian Taylor: What are the latest estimates of Treasury expenditure on business euro preparations for the 2001–02 financial year.

Gordon Brown: Some £10 billion—[Interruption]—£10 million, and the Opposition will be happy to note this, has already been spent on business euro preparations. Some £23 million has been spent to adopt euro-compatible systems in the Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions. A copy of the Treasury's fifth report on euro preparations, which was published on 4 November, has been deposited in the Library.

Ian Taylor: The Chancellor may overspend if he put £10 billion into the problem, but £10 million is too little. Does he agree that there will be a real competitive challenge to industry and traders in this country on 1 January—that 80 per cent. of the single European market, which is the home market for British business, will have one currency? There are 13 million visitors from the eurozone to this country. It is urgent that British companies not only accept notes and coins in euro denominations, but look at their marketing strategy and prepare themselves for what will be the dominant currency in our home market.

Gordon Brown: That is precisely why, in the most practical way, we have done what we can to help British businesses to prepare. We have published 425,000 fact sheets on euro preparation for businesses; we have written to 1.5 million small firms to inform them about the needs that will arise from the euro; we have published more than 50 business case studies showing how the euro can be adapted; and we have issued a euro preparations leaflet to 1.6 million small businesses. In addition, a leaflet is being distributed at ports and airports explaining to travellers to and from the United Kingdom how the euro will work.
	We are working with all the sectoral bodies in our euro preparations committee—which includes the Bank of England, the chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and many other organisations—to produce material for clients in different sectors. In addition, there is a telephone helpline available for businesses inquiring about Europe.
	I may add that we are encouraging people who have old coins and notes in foreign currencies that will be converted into the euro to give them to charity, if they are prepared to do so, and we are giving tax relief for that.

Stephen Ladyman: Retailers, banks, manufacturers and exporters are already having to spend huge amounts of money to get ready for the introduction of euro coins and notes. However, the real advantage to those businesses will occur only if we are in the eurozone and have the advantage of lower interest rates and still lower costs to business. Should not real preparations be made now to build up the campaign to explain to the British people and to British business the full advantages of joining the euro?

Gordon Brown: It is precisely to inquire about all the advantages of the euro that the five tests will be applied. The technical and preliminary work that is being undertaken in the Treasury will lead to an assessment within the first two years. The issues that must be examined and on which an objective assessment must be made include the effects on employment; the effects on investment; the effects on the flexibility of our economy; the effects on different sectors, including financial services; and whether there is sustainable and durable convergence. I believe that most businesses think that these are the right tests to make.
	It would be wrong to do what the Opposition do and rule out the euro on principle as a matter of economic dogma even if it were found to be in the national economic interest to join. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), shakes his head, but in 1997 he said that he was against the single currency "in principle". Does he still hold that view?

Productivity

Win Griffiths: What steps he is taking to encourage businesses to raise productivity levels.

Paul Boateng: The creation of a sustainable, stable macro-economic framework since 1997 has provided the foundation for productivity growth in UK firms. We have a long-term ambition to ensure that Britain achieves a faster rate of productivity growth than its main competitors, thereby closing the productivity gap. The Chancellor's pre-Budget report takes us a step nearer that ambition.

Win Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. When he considers the efforts of small and medium-sized companies to increase their productivity, will he examine the issues surrounding the charges for authorisations under integrated pollution control? A small company in my constituency, Abril Waxes, has found that it has to pay £7,000 for its authorisation, which might be the same as that paid by a company such as BP. Will he consider a system of sliding scales based on output for such charges?

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend takes a very close interest in these matters and I am grateful for his support for our objectives. He makes a fair point and I will ensure that officials consider his proposal and get back to him on our likely capacity to be able to introduce such a measure.
	The pre-Budget report sought to help small businesses through the simplification of VAT and by further reforms to the business tax system. I hope that they will assist the sort of firm that he rightly said has particular concerns about compliance costs.

Child Poverty

James Purnell: What measures he is taking to tackle child poverty.

Dawn Primarolo: The Government are committed to abolishing child poverty within a generation and halving it by 2010. As a result of tax and benefit changes announced in the last Parliament, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there would otherwise have been. In addition, the Government have put extra funds into services specifically available for children, such as sure start, neighbourhood renewal and the children's fund.

James Purnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that ending child poverty also depends on making work pay? Does she remember the shadow Chancellor campaigning relentlessly against the minimum wage in the 1992 election and claiming that it would cost up to 2 million jobs? Does that not show the essentially right-wing instincts of the Conservative party and the fact that it cannot ever be trusted on child poverty or—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but Opposition policy has nothing to do with the Paymaster General.

Dawn Primarolo: Poverty is complex and multi- dimensional, as my hon. Friend will realise. To tackle child poverty, it is necessary to deal with low incomes through the minimum wage and the tax and benefit changes that the Government have introduced. We need to tackle the problem of workless households by ensuring that people can get into work, stay in work and keep more of the money that they earn. The working families tax credit is an example of how we do that. We must also invest in public services—in particular, education and health—to give the best start to our children and to ensure that they are able to develop their potential without the scar of poverty destroying their lives.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 10 December—Second Reading of the Tax Credits Bill.
	Tuesday 11 December—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the staging of the world athletics championships in the United Kingdom followed by a debate on waste management policy.
	Details will be given in the Official Report.
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Wednesday 12 December—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
	A debate on International Terrorism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Consideration of Lords amendments to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
	Thursday 13 December—Remaining stages of the Animal Health Bill.
	The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
	Friday 14 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
	Monday 17 December—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 18 December—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill.
	Wednesday 19 December—Motion to approve a statutory instrument. Details to be announced.
	Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment debate.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the next five weeks will be:
	Thursday 13 December—Debate on the report from the Health Committee on public health.
	Thursday 10 January—Debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on wave and tidal energy.
	Thursday 17 January—Debate on child health and maternity.
	Thursday 24 January—Debate on the report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on walking in towns and cities.
	Thursday 31 January—Debate on Gibraltar.
	The House will wish to know that on Monday 10 December there will be a debate relating to the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states in European Standing Committee B. This rearranges the debate adjourned last Monday.
	[Monday 10 December 2001:
	European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union Document: 13425/01, European Arrest Warrant. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-vii (2001-02) and HC 152-viii (2001-02).]
	[Tuesday 11 December:
	Winter supplementary summary request for supply (HC 392). Vote on Account (House of Commons) (HC393). Vote on Account (National Audit Office) (HC394). Vote on Account (Electoral Commission) (HC 395)]

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week and beyond. On his last point, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in response to points of order raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), at column 185 of Hansard on 4 December you helpfully invited the hon. Lady in particular to follow up the important constitutional issue that arose following what my hon. Friend called "a shambles" in the European Standing Committee last Monday? Based on what that Committee said—or, strictly speaking, was not able to say; it has yet to reach a decision—and what was said in the equivalent Committee in another place, the Government are surely unable to take a position on European arrest warrants in the Council of Ministers, which is meeting even as we speak.
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an absolute undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will make no commitment on that matter until the proper parliamentary process has been completed. As the Committee will not meet again until next Monday, I hope that he will say categorically that the Government will not take a position on behalf of this country in that Council of Ministers before the Committee concludes its deliberations and the parliamentary process is completed. It is an important matter, and I am sure the Leader of the House, with his well-known respect for the parliamentary process, will readily be able to give that guarantee.
	The Leader of the House has so far shared his views on what he chooses to call the modernisation of the House of Commons only, we are told, with the parliamentary Labour party. Before he shares his views with the rest of us—I do not know when that will be—will he guarantee that his proposals will strengthen the House of Commons and Parliament vis-à-vis the Government and reduce the Government's stranglehold on our parliamentary process, which they are seeking to tighten? Moreover, will he guarantee that nothing that he does will give Members of Parliament the opportunity to reduce their role in this place, or allow them to bunk off rather than be here fulfilling their parliamentary duties? Those undertakings will be very important when we all come to consider the proposals, as I hope we will eventually be given the chance to do.
	Finally, may I draw the Leader's attention to early-day motion No. 529?
	[That this House is deeply concerned by the contents of the Press release entitled 'Labour Thugs Attack MP', issued by the Labour honourable Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on 4th December, in which he complains of 'an intimidatory move' by the Labour honourable Member for Bradford South, 'prodding . . . in the back' by the Labour honourable Member for Lewisham West, and 'expletive name-calling' by the Labour honourable Member for Harwich; agrees with the Labour honourable Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham that 'It is time that New Labour was exposed for its Stalinist tendencies and desperate methods of trying to intimidate its own MPs'; and whilst, not sharing the honourable Member's view on Afghanistan, calls upon the Government Chief Whip to discipline those members of her office who have infringed acceptable methods of dealing with one of their own back bench colleagues.]
	I am sure that the Leader has memorised it, but while he is waiting for his Parliamentary Private Secretary to give him a copy, I can tell him that it concerns a press release entitled, "Labour thugs attack MP". [Hon. Members: "Oh no."] Yes, this is a very serious allegation, which must worry you, Mr. Speaker, as it does the rest of us. The MP concerned is the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), and he has made serious allegations about which we are all most concerned. He says that he has been both verbally and physically attacked by members of the Government.
	It is one thing for the Government to hold the House in contempt; we have almost got used to that. But it is quite another if the Government are now so desperate that their Ministers—Whips, after all, are on the payroll and have ministerial boxes and cars—are now physically and verbally attacking an independent-minded Member simply because he takes a view that is different from, and independent of, that of the Government. If the House of Commons is about anything, it is the ability of Members to take an independent view and to be accountable to their electorate and no one else. Here we have another direct threat against Members' independence, and I hope that you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is urgent that we debate the matter. Let us have it out in the open and hear what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has to say, and then let us decide how we, the House of Commons, can protect Labour MPs from their own Government.

Robin Cook: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I read with care your words inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to raise the matter with me this morning? I was delighted to see her in her place when I entered the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman has slightly stolen her thunder, but since he has asked the question, I may say to him that there is no question of those matters being agreed by Her Majesty's Government in any meeting in Brussels until the meeting on Monday 10 December. In practice, we anticipate that the issues will be resolved at Laeken, not at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and the Laeken meeting will take place after 10 December.
	The forthcoming paper on the modernisation of the House will be circulated to members of the Modernisation Committee this weekend, and discussed at meetings of the Committee next Tuesday and Wednesday. I hope that it will be available to all Members of the House next Wednesday.

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House guarantee that?

Robin Cook: I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that guarantee. However, I also want to point out that before the Modernisation Committee takes forward that programme of work, it is important that it has before it the views of all Members of the House, which is why it is important that the document should be shared with all Members.
	I am very pleased to give the right hon. Gentleman the guarantees that he asked for. The whole purpose of the exercise is to make sure that Parliament is able to do its job more effectively and able to scrutinise legislation more effectively, and that it has Select Committees that can scrutinise the Executive more effectively. It is important that we get across the message that the modernisation of Parliament is not about making life easier for MPs; it is about making the job of the MP more effective and more rewarding. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear, and I look forward to his support in this matter, that the total impact of my proposals on the sitting hours of the House will be to increase, not diminish, them. I know that he personally will fully support me on that.
	On the other matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises, I accept responsibility for many things, but not for what happens in the Strangers Bar at 3 am. My rare experience of being in the Strangers Bar at 3 am is that it is a place for robust exchange of views, and I should not have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be surprised or dismayed by that, but there is a categorical denial of any physical violence.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am delighted to hear that European Standing Committee B will have an opportunity to look again at the very important European arrest warrant. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is an extremely far-reaching measure? It is not simply a matter of a small adjustment; it will affect many aspects of British law. Before we accept the right of a foreign Administration to issue a demand for arrest on matters as wide as crimes of homosexuality and abortion, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should debate the consequences and the implications on the Floor of the House of Commons, where all hon. Members can be aware of what we are being committed to?

Robin Cook: I am quite sure that all hon. Members are well aware of the proposals of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. They have, after all, been debated during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and will no doubt be debated again when we consider statutory instruments under that Bill when it becomes an Act. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for the fact that there will be a debate in the Standing Committee. That debate will be timely, before any decision is taken. I would not disagree with her that important and serious issues are involved. It is precisely because of the need for co-operation across Europe and with our immediate neighbours to defeat terrorism that we are taking the measure.

Paul Tyler: In the context of the improved scrutiny that the House should undertake, does the Leader of the House recall the infamous memo from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), in which he advised his colleagues to "bunk off"—to use his own expression—on a regular basis? Does the Leader of the House also recall that late on Tuesday night we missed the right hon. Gentleman in the Chamber, when he, too, seemed to have bunked off at an early hour?
	With regard to modernisation, does the Leader of the House recognise that we have a problem? Members of the Select Committee have been sworn to secrecy about the ideas that we are currently discussing, yet the briefing which emerged from the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party last night, most of which seemed to be erroneous, puts us in the awkward position of not knowing whether we are allowed to discuss those matters with our colleagues or with the media. Can the Leader of the House release members of the Select Committee from that vow of secrecy? We recall that on many occasions in this place, members of Select Committees have been strongly criticised for disclosing matters that were being considered by their Committees.
	In particular, can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, as part of his proposals, he will examine the vexed issue of the rationalisation and regularisation of the allocation of Opposition Supply days and the way in which subjects for debate on those days are chosen? He will recall that over the past week or so, considerable confusion resulted from the failure to give us information in good time so that we could prepare for those debates.

Robin Cook: I hope that the paper on modernisation will be circulated to members of the Modernisation Committee in the course of today and that it will be available for the weekend. The normal rule to which the hon. Gentleman refers is correct. A Select Committee would be expected to proceed with its papers on the basis of discussion only within the Committee.
	We must be mature and recognise that if we are to discuss the modernisation of Parliament, changes in the working practices of our colleagues, and the right of the House to carry out effective scrutiny of legislation, we cannot do that in conditions of secrecy. It is important that we share that with colleagues, and that they can offer their own input. That is why we intend to release the document after it has been discussed in the Committee next week. I leave it to the discretion and good faith of members of the Committee as to whom they consult and the conditions on which they consult them before we meet to discuss the paper next week.
	On the views that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) expressed to the Conservative party, I well recall his proposal that Conservative Members should divide themselves into teams, each of which would turn up on one day of the week.

Eric Forth: It never happened.

Robin Cook: Yes, I regret to say that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal failed to be implemented. The rest of us were rather looking forward to the outcome, with only a fifth of Conservative Members turning up on any one day.

David Winnick: On an issue not raised by the two Opposition parties today, should not there be a statement in the House next week about why the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards did not have the opportunity of having her contract renewed, like her predecessor? Is it not clear that her successor, whoever that may be, will be under tremendous pressure, rather like Mrs. Filkin has been? If her successor carries out his or her duties in the same conscientious and honourable way as Mrs. Filkin, the feeling may be that that successor will not have his or her contract renewed. Is there not a case for the appointment to be made by an outside body, not by us? That form of self-regulation is almost becoming a farce. Why should not the Committee on Standards in Public Life do the appointing? I must tell my right hon. Friend that the whole shabby business is regrettable and has reflected no credit on the House of Commons.

Robin Cook: I cheerfully say to my hon. Friend that I am open to bids from other Committees to take that burden upon themselves. I am certainly not fighting to keep it for the Committee on which I serve.

David Winnick: Outside bodies.

Robin Cook: The Standards and Privileges Committee is not an outside body. I remind my hon. Friend that the procedures of the House are clear; when an appointment is proposed, the nomination will come before the whole House of Commons on the Floor of the House and it will be for the whole House to approve or reject it. I think that I am correct in saying that it will be an amendable motion, so it will be open to my hon. Friend at that stage to table an amendment to test the opinion of the House on whether the present commissioner should be reappointed.
	I do not think that it will help my hon. Friend's cause of ensuring proper inviligation of the standards and conducts of Members of Parliament if he starts a campaign to decry the process of appointment. It is in the interests of everybody in the House to attract a quality field and approach the task of finding the best possible candidate to become commissioner.

Paul Goodman: Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for an early debate on health so that we can ask the Government whether they support a hypothecated health tax, like the Secretary of State for Health, or whether they oppose such a tax, like his very best friend the Chancellor?

Robin Cook: I have no doubt that the House will have the ingenuity to ask those questions on many future occasions.

Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon to debate the guidelines currently followed by Customs and Excise on personal imports of tobacco and alcohol? Under the guidelines, my right hon. Friend will be aware, Customs and Excise have not only made large seizures of alcohol and tobacco, but impounded motor vehicles, which are then sold. The European Commission has declared those guidelines unlawful. May we therefore have a debate or statement to clarify the position on the validity of those guidelines?

Robin Cook: I remind my hon. Friend that everything that Customs and Excise does is done under United Kingdom law, with the authority of the House and, indeed, the elected Government. Of course, I appreciate that the matter is of concern to people who have been stopped by Customs and Excise and had property confiscated, but the country faces a major problem of tobacco smuggling. It is important for all of us in the House to send a strong message to Customs and Excise that we welcome its vigilance against illegal smuggling.

George Young: The consultation period on the Government's proposals to reform the House of Lords runs out at the end of January. May we have an assurance that there will be a full day's debate on them before that period expires?

Robin Cook: I am pleased to give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I anticipate that that debate will be held in the first week after the recess, subject to progress on business.

Harry Barnes: After more than 14 years of persistent rebellion in the House, never once have I had any physical or verbal abuse from the Whips. I am wondering whether I do not go to Strangers Bar enough or whether people are not taking me seriously.
	My question to my right hon. Friend refers to early-day motion 532, which deals with a mineral planning guidance note:
	[That this House welcomes the gains made in the revised version of Mineral Planning Guidance Note 3 (MPG3) which can and should be used by planning authorities to prevent dangerous forms of open cast mining; is disturbed that these gains stand to be lost entirely by favoured changes which are due to take place to MPG ll, which itself is supposed to mitigate the environmental effects of mineral extractions, including open cast mining; notes that the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions is currently placing an entirely unjustified reliance upon a deeply flawed survey from Newcastle University which restricted its examination of the effects of dust particulates to PM 10 size, measured within the limited distance of l km of mineral extraction operations, when the professionals conducting the survey must have been aware that fine particulates travel exceptional distances and that PM 2-5 particulates could easily have been measured at no additional costs to their study; is disturbed to discover that such an inept and incompetent study is being used for the benefit of open cast mining interests, although many reputable alternative surveys have reached different conclusions; and calls upon the Government to commission its own detailed and rigorous research into such matters before the revised MPG 11 is adopted and published, so that environmental, health and communal interests are placed to the fore.]
	Improvements proposed by mineral planning guidance note 3 have made it much more difficult for opencast mining applications to be granted. Currently, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is investigating MPG 11, which is supposed to mitigate the environmental effects of mineral extraction. However, from correspondence that I have had with the Department, it appears to be taking too much into account a survey conducted by Newcastle university, which was published in 1999 by the Department of Health and does not take seriously the impact of coal dust on young people. It is clear that, at some point, we shall have a statement on new MPG 11. Can representations be made to ensure that that is not dumped on us, thereby undermining the situation achieved by MPG 3?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Far be it from me to bully the hon. Gentleman, but I think that that question went on a bit too long.

Robin Cook: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for confirming what I have long supposed: that the Government Whips treat Labour Members with respect to their person if not always with respect to their opinions.
	My hon. Friend is correct that the Department is conducting a review of planning guidance on opencast mining. The review can reflect the evidence to which he referred and can also take full account of the early-day motion that he and others have tabled.

Peter Bottomley: Can the Leader of the House remember on which day he was quoted referring to the whispering campaign against the current Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? If he cannot remember, it was on 20 August, on page 3 of the Financial Times. The Leader has also told the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that he wants to have a quality field of candidates for the next term of office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Will he therefore, perhaps in next week's debate, follow up on those remarks by saying whether he remembers his words of 28 June 2001, when he said that the current Parliamentary Commissioner is "zealous . . . extremely zealous"?
	Is the Leader trying to ensure that the field is less zealous by associating himself with a cut in the commissioner's days of service per week from four to three, in the mistaken belief that Sir Gordon Downey worked three days rather than four days per week? Will he please also give the House an opportunity as soon as possible to debate and vote on early-day motion 513, which states:
	[That this House has confidence in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and invites Elizabeth Filkin to accept reappointment on the terms of the initial contract working four days a week.]
	As I understand it, such a debate and vote are the only way in which the House can offer reappointment to the commissioner on the terms that she is currently on and that Sir Gordon Downey was on.

Robin Cook: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I remind him that Mrs. Filkin applied for a job and that the job description said that it would be for three days; that is the basis on which she was chosen. Subsequently, it was negotiated that she should be paid and employed for four days. It has always been open to her to pursue that course, and it has always been open to any candidate who has been appointed to secure an extension of the three days. That is precisely what we did last time.
	The hon. Gentleman is correct that Sir Gordon Downey was employed for four days a week. It is also the case that, before he retired, he wrote to the authorities indicating that, in his view, the job merited three days a week, not four. The job description for his successor was drawn up on that basis.
	I have of course studied the early-day motion with care; I always pay respect to early-day motions. Quite often, they provide a useful expression of a weight of opinion in the House and often attract a very large number of signatures. I noted with care that the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion has been signed so far by 18 hon. Members, and therefore does not attract the priority for debate that many others do that demonstrate a much larger body of opinion behind them in the House.

Neil Gerrard: Hon. Members on both sides of the House were very grateful that, yesterday, you, Mr. Speaker, were able to take a private notice question on the middle east from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). However, given the very serious nature of events in the area, will the Leader of the House try to find time as soon as possible for a full debate, in Government time, on the situation in the middle east, particularly in relation to the west bank and Gaza? Although hon. Members have been able to address those issues in debates on international terrorism, I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that we deserve time to debate Palestine and the problems there outside of that context. I do not think that we have had such a debate in the past year.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of deep concern to many hon. Members. He is also quite correct that there is an opportunity to raise those issues in the course of our exchanges on international terrorism. There will be another full day's debate on that subject next week, which will be the sixth such full day's debate since 11 September. There have therefore been many opportunities for hon. Members to raise those issues of concern. I underline the Government's deep anxiety about the present situation in the middle east and our appeal to both sides for restraint and a return to the negotiating table. I know that this is a matter of deep concern and priority for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure that he and his team will continue to do all that they can to ensure that Britain and the European Union play their part in trying to bring both parties back from the brink.

Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House accept that the House of Commons Commission is not an all-party body, as it was described by the Prime Minister yesterday—a number of parties in the House are not represented on it? Will he ask the Prime Minister not to describe it as such in future? As I understand it, the Leader of the House said earlier that we could have a debate on the Floor of the House about the appointment of the next Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Should not we have a debate on what happened to our current commissioner before we have a debate on the next one, either through early-day motion 513 or by some other means? How many signatures does he require that motion to have before he will agree to the democratic aspect of a debate on the Floor of the House?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is correct: his party and the other minority parties do not have direct representation on the House of Commons Commission. However, the Commission embraces representatives of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) serves on the Commission—indeed, I think that he did so even before he held his present position—although I must confess that it was not entirely clear to me in respect of some of the questions asked during Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday whether it was understood in his party that he is a member of the Commission and has played a full part in all the decisions that we have taken.
	I do not believe that the issue has lacked adequate ventilation in Parliament or the press. There is no question of the matter being dealt with secretly. After all, the advert itself is a public document by definition. I urge everybody now to focus on the important task ahead of us, which is to ensure that we get a person of calibre, ability and commitment to carry out the job properly.

Kevin Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend put paid to the nonsense that is being circulated today to the effect that any people other than hon. Members can come into the Chamber when the House is sitting or into Committees when they are doing business? Should not he be introducing measures that encourage hon. Members to be here more as legislators, instead of encouraging them to be back in their constituencies acting as social workers and parish council mayors? Can he give me an assurance that when these matters come before the House, they will, as House matters, be decided as usual by free vote? Will he put them forward separately and not as a full package?

Robin Cook: I rather thought that my hon. Friend's earlier observations sounded a little bit like an editorial in The Guardian. I was rather surprised that he should express himself in such terms, as I know how much he values his constituency work, having visited him there. It is important that the House should strike the right balance. We are indeed here to legislate and scrutinise Government, but we are here also to represent our constituents. We cannot carry out that proper job of legislating and scrutinising Government if we do not have adequate contact with our constituents and pay adequate attention to their views. I know that he does that, so I am rather surprised by his comments. As to when and how the House considers the issues to which he refers, we are still some months away and I agree that the matter is one for the Modernisation Committee to resolve. I do not imagine that there will be one composite portmanteau or resolution. Even if we dealt with the matter on one day, I imagine that a number of different issues would have to be addressed.

Ian Taylor: Will the Leader of the House provide some Government time to review the progress that they are making on their policy on planning? In particular, are the Government considering the impact on national heritage sites, where planning appears to be confused? In my constituency, between Hampton Court station and Hampton Court palace, there is a site that provides scandalous evidence of the failure of both owners and planners to come to any terms. As a result, the public constantly see the mess that is on the site when they leave the station to visit one of the finest palaces in this country. It would be useful to know what the Government are thinking about how to get proper planning quickly on such sites.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an important planning issue. I hesitate to express an off-the-cuff opinion about such an historic site, which he has the distinction of representing. I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Minister in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who is responsible for planning.

Roger Casale: I am mindful of my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). However, despite the good progress in shaping an inclusive, post-conflict Government for the people of Afghanistan, does he agree that the prospects for renewing or retrieving the middle east peace process have become very bleak this week? Does he also agree that it is essential for Europe, the United States and the international community to show the same determination as they displayed in Afghanistan in putting pressure on both sides in the middle east conflict to come back to the negotiating table? We are in danger not only of losing the possibility of a long-term settlement, but of not finding a way back to the peace process at all.

Robin Cook: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The Government will endeavour to achieve the outcome that he seeks. However, I would take a step back from the suggestion of putting pressure on either side. It is important to lobby, to try to bring both sides together and encourage them to reach agreement. It is also important to recognise that what we ask of them is in their interests. We are not asking them to do something as a favour to world opinion; we are asking them to return to the negotiating table and exercise restraint on violence for the sake of their people. The only way in which to secure a permanent peace in the middle east is through a negotiated agreement. It will not be achieved by helicopter gunships on one side and suicide bombers on the other.

Andrew MacKay: Each time a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, confusion reigns about when the Government will implement their election pledge to increase national health spending to the European average. Earlier, the Chief Secretary, aided and abetted by a nodding Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggested that we would achieve the European average of 1998 in 2005. Is not it time that the Leader of the House asked the Prime Minister to make a statement on health? The Prime Minister pledged that he would take personal responsibility for the NHS; he should therefore answer questions on it exclusively.

Robin Cook: I can only remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions in the House every week and that he has answered that specific question twice in the past two weeks.

David Kidney: A few weeks ago, I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would arrange a debate on the Auld report's recommendations for the reform of the criminal justice system. He gave me a sympathetic, but non-committal reply. Has he any firm proposals for such a debate during the consultation period, which ends at the end of January next year?

Robin Cook: I cannot commit myself to a debate by the end of January. We have already made one commitment for January, when there will be a heavy volume of legislation to tackle. However, we attach great importance to the Auld recommendations, and hon. Members will have to consider them in future in the context of legislation. If the opportunity arises, it would be appropriate for the House to express its view on the matter.

Angela Browning: When the Leader of the House presents the Modernisation Committee recommendations next week, I hope that he will not use "family friendly" as a smoke screen for changes that the press suggest are geared towards clockwatching earth mothers. He knows that if hon. Members clock off at 5 pm, only very few will go home to the bosom of their family. Most of us live many hours' journey from our families. Will he bear it in mind that many hon. Members would be footloose and fancy free in the city from 5 pm onwards? I cannot believe that that is in the family's interest.

Robin Cook: Nor do I imagine that London would welcome clockwatching earth mothers being footloose in the city. Let me repeat my comments of last week. The idea that the House can ever agree to hours of 10 am to 5 pm is garbage. I never proposed that, although the newspaper that suggested that I had done so reported last weekend that I had withdrawn the proposal in the face of criticism. I am wearily reconciled to the ways of the press, and I am happy to bear an allegation that I withdrew an idea that I never proposed.
	We need to find hours that will enable the House to be effective. Much of the debate about the hours of the House focuses too much on the end of the evening, when we go home. There is a much stronger case for focusing on the earlier part of the day when we do not sit, and for asking why we do not begin our proceedings until 2.30 pm, three days a week.

Rob Marris: As the Leader of the House may be aware, Dovecotes primary school in Pendeford in my constituency is this year one of the 20 most improved primary schools in the country. I am sure that he will agree that the hard-working staff, head teacher, pupils and parents of Dovecotes primary school deserve the House's warm congratulations on their magnificent achievement. Does he also agree that the latest statistics are a welcome step towards a more sophisticated analysis of work and achievement in our education system, and represent a move away from the simplistic raw tables of bare results? Will he find time for the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to make a statement to the House next week on the achievements of so many schools around the country, including Dovecotes?

Robin Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having a primary school in his constituency that is in the top 20 in Britain. That must be a source of satisfaction to him as a Member of Parliament, and a source of pride to his constituents and to the head teacher.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on what has been dubbed "operation homework", in which the Ministry of Defence supplied information to one Master Euan Blair on the arguments in favour of the nuclear deterrent? If the Secretary of State has more important things to do, may Conservative Members, in the spirit of Christmas, offer free tuition to Euan on the merits of nuclear deterrence? We would be quite happy to teach him about that subject now, just as we had to teach his father about it 15 or 20 years ago.

Robin Cook: I expressed admiration for the hon. Gentleman at the last business statement, and he subsequently rebuked me for undermining his status and street cred among hon. Members on his own side. This week, for balance, I must tell him that I cannot think of anything more sad than those who have lives so empty that they worry about such trivia.

Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware of the concern throughout the House about the continuing use of the Barnett formula. Would it be possible to have a debate on that in the near future? In the context of Northern Ireland, while we appreciate the extra money that has been coming forth at different levels throughout the nation, we are concerned that, according to the Executive in Northern Ireland, the health service there will get worse if we continue to use that formula.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are providing substantial additional resources for the health service for the whole of the United Kingdom, and that embraces Northern Ireland. I assure him that I follow closely the Barnett formula, and we shall ensure that it applies in a way that reflects the principles behind it, and the changing population statistics, which undoubtedly have a legitimate impact on the arithmetic involved. Our wish is to ensure that health standards across the whole of the United Kingdom are raised, whatever an area's allocation may be under the Barnett formula.

David Heathcoat-Amory: May I press the Leader of the House a little more about the European arrest warrant? He helpfully said earlier that this would not be agreed before the European Standing Committee had reconvened on Monday. However, in yesterday's debate on the European Union, the Minister for Europe said:
	"Already we have agreed that there will be a common European arrest warrant."—[Official Report, 5 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 388.]
	That conflicts with a motion passed by the House on 17 November 1998, which clearly states:
	"No Minister of the Crown should give agreement . . . to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common strategy, joint action or"
	political agreement before the scrutiny process is completed. Will the Leader of the House give an absolute assurance that the letter of this resolution of the Commons will be adhered to in full, particularly as Ministers are always boasting that the House is to become more involved in European Union matters?

Robin Cook: I have already given an undertaking to the House, on the authority of the Home Office, that that matter will not be agreed to until we have had our debate in Standing Committee on Monday, because it will be resolved at the Laeken summit, not at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, although it has been discussed there. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that fact and that there is broad agreement that there should be a Europe-wide arrest warrant so that we can expedite and make more efficient our own action against terrorists who pose a common threat to each of us. That has been well reported and extensively debated in the House, but the technical steps to put the matter into effect will not be agreed to until after Monday.

Andrew Mitchell: Has the Leader of the House had a chance during his busy week to read the report of the excellent debate in the other place on clause 110 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill? In the work that the Modernisation Committee is doing, will he bear in mind that that clause, which will have a fundamental effect on British criminal law, was not even discussed under the terms of the guillotine in this House? Will he ensure that that never happens again?

Robin Cook: Following 11 September, I very much hope that the House does not find itself in such a position ever again. This is emergency legislation. It is important to show our constituents that we can scrutinise legislation adequately and thoroughly, and that we can act expeditiously when that is necessary for the safety of our constituents. That is why we want the Bill to become an Act before the end of the year. Three months after 11 September, the hon. Gentleman's constituents would find it odd if the House of Commons had not provided a legislative response to that danger to ensure that they are safer.

Andrew Turner: Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern at the way in which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards undertook her duties. Equally, other right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their support for her reappointment. In answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the Leader of the House said that the matter has been ventilated widely in the press and in this place. That is true of the press, but not very true of this place, and most of us have no information apart from that which we can gather either from the press or from our colleagues.
	Would not it help the House to publish in full the allegations made by the parliamentary commissioner and the reasons for the House of Commons Commission choosing to readvertise the post rather than reappoint her, so that we can have a debate based on fact, not backstairs rumour and gossip?

Robin Cook: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's closing point. Mrs. Filkin made general observations that excited much comment in the press, but when she was interviewed on radio yesterday and asked to provide chapter and verse for the allegations, I was struck by the fact that she produced none and said that she was referring to stories told to her by journalists.
	I welcome the statement made yesterday by the Speaker and I look forward to Mrs. Filkin's response detailing the allegations that she has made. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I and the other members of the House of Commons Commission are not clear about what she may have been alluding to in those allegations. Having made them, I hope that she provides detail to the House, the Commission and the press, because it is not fair to the civil service generally to refer to a named civil servant and then decline to name that civil servant.

Nicholas Winterton: Macclesfield borough council's housing officers have approached me on a serious matter that is developing as a result of the reference point rent system, which relates to housing benefit allocation. Where housing rents are high, it appears that the system does not enable sufficient housing benefit to be awarded to allow poorer people to retain their accommodation. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Minister to make a statement so that the House may refer to the problem, which is occurring in an increasing number of constituencies?

Robin Cook: It is indeed of serious concern to many. There is a real dilemma for all of us: we want to ensure that people can occupy the accommodation that they require irrespective of their income, but we do not want to return to past circumstances in which landlords have felt free to exploit the housing benefit system by charging unreasonable rents. A balance must be struck. I shall, however, invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Desmond Swayne: When the Prime Minister was questioned about Mrs. Filkin yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he replied that that was a matter for the House. Will the Leader of the House grant the House a debate so that it can express its opinion? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to express the feeling of many of us that this is a job not for a civil servant or, indeed, a self-publicist, but for a judge.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman characteristically provides a new angle on the search for a successor to Mrs. Filkin, and the House of Commons Commission will take his proposal on board. It seems to me, however, that the logical next step in the process is for Mrs. Filkin to reply to the letter sent to her by Mr. Speaker inviting her to explain the allegations that she has chosen to put in the public domain. When that has been done, Mr. Speaker and the Commission must consider what is the next appropriate step; but I look forward to the reply.

Graham Brady: The Leader of the House will be aware that on Tuesday I presented the Health (Patients' Rights) Bill. The gist of it was that patients who had been waiting too long for treatment in the NHS should have a right to treatment overseas, or in the private sector.
	I was delighted to see the Secretary of State for Health on the airwaves this morning, apparently adopting my proposal as Government policy. I am always happy to be as helpful as possible to the Secretary of State. Could the Leader of the House bring forward my Bill's Second Reading, scheduled for 18 January, to next week? We could then have a debate in Government time, and the Secretary of State, instead of merely saying that he wants to offer patients that right, would be able to give them a statutory right to treatment within a maximum period.

Robin Cook: I would not wish to withdraw from the hon. Gentleman the satisfaction he evidently feels about the fact that what he proposed one day became Government policy the next. I know, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been working on the matter for some time. His announcement was one of a series made by the Department of Health about the need for us to ensure that patients have a right to operations and, when those operations are cancelled, a right for them to be replaced within 28 days. We will continue to work on that within the targets of the national plan, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to support and encourage us as we proceed towards our joint goals.

Health Authority Resource Allocations

Alan Milburn: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the resources that will be available to local health services in all parts of England next year. Today I am allocating revenue resources to local health authorities for the financial year beginning April 2002. I have written to all Members today, giving information about the health authorities in their constituencies.
	The national health service is currently the fastest growing health care system in any major European country. Under this Labour Government, it is growing twice as fast as it grew under the last Conservative Government. With the additional resources announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, it will grow by a further 6.8 per cent. in real terms next year.
	As the House knows, however, that follows decades of underfunding. No one should believe that a few years of extra investment, even on this scale, can put right decades of underinvestment. The NHS plan that we published last year is, rightly, a 10-year programme of investment and reform.
	Major problems remain in the health service, of course, but there is progress too. Last year there were almost 5,000 extra heart operations, and waiting times for treatment are falling. Because prevention is as important as treatment, the number of cholesterol-lowering drugs being prescribed has risen by a third in just one year. Nine out of 10 cancer patients are now being seen within two weeks; many used to have to wait for months. The maximum waiting time for any hospital operation is already down from 18 to 15 months in three quarters of NHS trusts, and all trusts will be in that position by next spring.
	This is the first year in 30 in which the number of general and acute beds in our hospitals is rising rather than falling. Ten new hospitals are already open, as part of the biggest hospital-building programme that the NHS has ever seen. Most important of all, the NHS today has 17,000 more nurses and 7,000 more doctors than it had when we came to office, with thousands more to come.
	There is a long way to go, but the people working in the NHS are doing a great job to improve services for patients. Now we can build on the progress that they are making.
	Last year at this time, I indicated that all health authorities could expect to receive a minimum revenue increase of 6 per cent. in 2002-03. That 6 per cent. is more than health authorities received in four of the last five years under the Conservatives. In fact, I am now able to go further than I was planning to do at this time last year. Rather than growth of a minimum of 6 per cent. next year, I can tell the House that no health authority will receive less than 9.3 per cent. growth next year.
	The next financial year will be the last under the existing formula for deciding how NHS resources are distributed to local health services. From the following year, there will be a new formula and, subject to Parliament, resources will go directly to locally run primary care trusts for the first time, as part of the Government's wider programme to devolve ever more power and resources to the NHS front line.
	The resources that I am allocating today for 2002–03 are being distributed according to the existing formula. As the House is aware, that formula has been widely criticised for failing to get health services to the areas of greatest health need. It has also been criticised for failing to reflect fully the additional costs that the NHS has to bear in those parts of the country where labour market and housing costs are highest. Last year, I announced two major changes better to reflect health needs on the one hand and labour market costs on the other. I am building on those changes for the year ahead.
	First, health inequalities scar our nation. Poverty and deprivation bring not only excess morbidity and mortality, but extra costs to local health services. Next year, for the first time, I have reflected in the formula the costs associated with tackling high rates of infant mortality alongside the costs associated with conditions such as cancer and heart disease. The resources to tackle health inequalities within health authority budgets will therefore rise next year by 14 per cent. The £148 million that we are making available to recognise the areas of greatest health need will benefit towns and cities in the north and midlands as well as the poorer parts of the south of England.
	Secondly, I am increasing the resources available within health authority budgets to help the local NHS in those parts of England where living costs are highest. This year, for the first time, we introduced cost of living supplements for 100,000 qualified nurses, midwives, health visitors, therapists and radiographers who work in the highest cost parts of the country. In London, staff receive up to £1,000 a year on top of their salaries and London weightings. Elsewhere, they receive up to £600 a year more. Those cost of living payments are already helping the NHS to recruit and retain staff.
	I have received a number of representations from right hon. and hon. Members, and from local health services, from areas where the supplements are not yet available. I have decided, first, to increase to more than £100 million the resources allocated to fund the cost of living supplements. They will continue to be paid to the areas currently receiving them. However, I have decided that from next year, in addition, the scheme will be extended to cover East and West Kent, North and South Essex—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is pleased for once—Northamptonshire and East Sussex, Brighton and Hove. Every health authority in London and the south will now receive extra resources in recognition of the higher costs that they face.
	Every part of the country will benefit from the significant increases in funding for health authorities that I am announcing today. The average health authority budget will rise by £39 million or just under 10 per cent. Health authorities will be expected to work with local primary care trusts on deciding how best those resources are spent. Within those allocations there are extra funds for cancer, heart disease and mental health services alongside new resources for information technology and for primary care.
	In addition, more than £400 million will be available to secure extra capacity to treat more NHS patients. It will be for local health services to decide how best to spend those resources, but they may be spent in NHS hospitals, in the private and voluntary sectors, and in community and social services.
	The extra resources will need to secure improved services in the priority areas that count most for patients—better emergency care, shorter waiting times for treatment, and improvements in cancer, heart, mental health and elderly care. By the end of the next financial year, we expect nine in 10 NHS patients to be able to see a GP within 48 hours, and the maximum waiting time for a hospital operation to have fallen from 18 months today to 12 months. That is still too long, but it is the shortest maximum waiting time in the history of the NHS and a staging post towards shorter waiting times still.
	Investment alone, however, will not secure the improvements in care that staff are striving to achieve and which patients rightly want to see delivered. The NHS will need to use these extra resources to drive forward the NHS plan reform programme. There are now national standards for the first time, and an independent inspection regime to assure them. There are more freedoms and more rewards for the good hospitals, alongside more help, support and—where necessary—intervention for the worst. Resources and power are being devolved to front-line services and staff, and there is now a more sensible relationship between the public and private sectors which means that we can provide more NHS care for more NHS patients.
	These reforms are about putting the patients first. Our aim must be to create a more decentralised, more diverse and more responsive health service, capable of offering patients better services and greater choice.
	Today, we are publishing proposals that will for the first time give patients an explicit choice over where they are treated in the NHS. As we said in our election manifesto, the investment and reforms that we are making mean that, by 2005, every patient needing hospital treatment will be helped by their GP to choose not just the date but the location of that treatment. The resources that we have now mean that we can make a start next year on introducing this new system, under which patients will be choosing the hospital, rather than hospitals choosing the patient.
	We will start with those patients who have been waiting longest for treatment, and with those who have the most serious clinical conditions. Today, as the House is aware, thousands of patients have been waiting for a heart operation for more than six months. Waiting times are shortening, but they are still too long.
	Therefore, I can tell the House today that, from the middle of next year, every patient in England who has waited for a heart operation for six months will be able to choose between hospitals—in the public sector or the private sector, in this country or abroad—that can do the operation more quickly. The choice will be theirs.
	The initiative for heart surgery marks the start of a wider programme to improve patient choice and speed up treatment. Other pilots will be developed over time.
	We will be discussing these proposals with patient, professional and health-care organisations so that the proposals can guarantee high clinical standards for patients and good value for money for taxpayers.
	Many patients may choose not to exercise a choice. Many will prefer to wait at their local hospital, even if that means a slightly longer wait. Some patients will prefer to travel to get faster treatment, but the point is that, for the first time, the choice will be the patient's. Moreover, that choice will no longer be between waiting longer for treatment or paying for treatment.
	There are two distinct views about the future of health care in our country. The Opposition seem to believe that more and more people should have to pay for more and more treatments. In contrast, the Government say that patients should be able to choose without having to pay.
	The principles of the NHS are the right principles for Britain. They are that treatment should be free at the point of use, paid for through general taxation, and supplied according to need rather than a person's ability to pay.
	The investment and reforms that we are making will create a service delivering quicker, higher-quality care for millions of NHS patients. The resources that I have announced today will mark a further step towards a better and faster health service—a national health service for all the people of our country.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that statement, and I am glad that it was he who made it. No one was sure whether he would deliver it, or whether it would be the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it is increasingly unclear who in the Government makes health policy. However, I am not sure whether the Secretary of State's function today was to be piggy in the middle, or tethered goat.
	Given the publicity from the Secretary of State this morning, people will be surprised to discover that the promises on a six-month waiting maximum and the choice to be available thereafter will apply only to heart patients. That is welcome, but it is rather different from the spin being applied this morning by Ministers and members of the press. It is more about saving Ministers' skins than patients.
	In 1998, the Chancellor told us that Labour would be spending £21 billion extra over the next three years. Indeed, the Prime Minister told us in July last year that the NHS had already benefited from the biggest sustained increase in its history. Has anyone noticed any difference? Patients are waiting longer to see their general practitioner, to be seen in accident and emergency departments and to have operations. Now we are told that simply spending more money will make a difference.
	In his spending statement last year, the Secretary of State said that improved co-operation between health and social services would mean
	"lower rates of delayed discharges from hospitals in all parts of the country."—[Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol. 356, c. 807.]
	Yet, by the Government's own admission, the number of delayed discharges—or blocked beds—has soared. There are nearly 6,500 blocked beds in England alone. Some 15 per cent. of all beds in Birmingham are blocked, with 19 per cent. in Hampshire and 18 per cent. in Brent and Harrow.
	Last year, the Secretary of State told us that the increased money would mean real progress in the Government's NHS targets. Waiting to be seen in accident and emergency departments would take an average of 75 minutes and the maximum wait for out-patient appointments would be three months. Yet the Audit Commission tells us that not only are things getting worse, since 1998 they have been getting much worse. There are now 400,000 people on the waiting list for the waiting list. No progress has been made. The Labour party chairman said that, under Labour, the NHS is going backwards.
	Last year, the Secretary of State said that £4 billion more would be available for front-line services. Some £3,732 million was made available. However, pay review body staff costs came to £500 million and to £250 million for non-pay review body staff. Medical price inflation was £300 million, the new pension contribution rates cost £372 million and the waiting times initiative came to £400 million. The maximum amount that was available for front-line services was £560 million. Indeed, if the national service frameworks cost more than the estimates, there may well have been a negative figure for core functions.
	That is why the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said in The Guardian today of the Government's spending:
	"where is the evidence it will make the difference they want and not simply be frittered away, as many will fear, on bureaucracy and burgeoning wage bills?
	The government's political difficulty is that both this confidence and evidence have not been helped by a perception . . . that the government's response to underfunding is to say it will simply spend zillions more taxes on a system that looks as yet completely unreformed."
	Can the Secretary of State answer some specific questions? How much does he estimate, in today's settlement, for the costs of change? The Bill reorganising the NHS, which is passing through the House, will cost money. How much? What estimate is in the settlement for pay effects for the next year? What estimate is there for the cost of drugs currently being approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? What estimate does he make for the cost of reducing working hours for doctors? What estimate does he make for the costs of waiting time initiatives? What cost does he estimate for the national health service frameworks? How much does he estimate will be spent by the NHS in the private sector in the coming year in what he describes as a more sensible relationship with the private sector? The Prime Minister has not been very good at his sums this week. I hope that the Secretary of State will do better when he gives us answers to those questions.
	We can have no longer have confidence in what the Secretary of State promises. He talks about decentralisation, yet is centralising the financial relationships. He talks about choice, yet his party abolished extra- contractual referrals and fundholding, which gave genuine choice. He talks today of more money, yet 40 per cent. of NHS hospital trusts in England are forecasting a deficit this year, with their financial position likely to worsen in 2002.
	Before the Labour party came to office, it promised that things could only get better. In the NHS they are actually getting worse.

Alan Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—for what, I do not know, but at least for only a brief series of questions. I will run through the issues that he raised.
	On delayed discharges and bed blocking, the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have allocated a further £300 million for social services. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was able to announce further rises for social services for the next financial year. The interesting question for the hon. Gentleman is whether he is prepared to match those funding increases. He certainly failed to come up with the answer to that question before the election; perhaps he can do so now.
	The hon. Gentleman asked where the money went during the last financial year. It has gone on paying for more staff, better wages and more buildings. An extra £300 million is being made available for new drugs for cancer and heart disease. We are making efforts to get rid of Nightingale wards in our hospitals. More operations are being carried out and waiting times are falling. There are improvements in cancer and coronary heart disease services. For the first time in 30 years, there are more hospital beds and a huge hospital building programme.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the overall costs of our programme for change—devolving power from health authorities to primary care trusts. In fact, that will save money: £100 million, which we will invest in child care services. He asks how much money we shall be committing to waiting times initiatives—as he calls them—and to building up NHS capacity in order that NHS hospitals can perform more NHS operations on more NHS patients: the amount will be about £400 million.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the role of the private sector. As he is aware, I announced at a recent meeting of the Select Committee on Health that we would be doubling the amount of money available for the NHS to contract with private sector hospitals to carry out more NHS operations. If local primary care trusts and strategic health authorities want to do more, that is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman constantly urges devolution, so I hope that he will support it when it happens.
	However, the hon. Gentleman did not express in his statement the attitude of the Conservatives towards the national health service. He did not say whether he supports the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary who called the national health service Stalinist. Is that the hon. Gentleman's view? Does he believe that the national health service is Stalinist? I remind him what the national health service is: the national health service—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should be answering the questions, not asking them.

Alan Milburn: I have answered a load of questions put by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). I have answered the questions about NICE. I have answered the questions about how much money will be going into waiting initiatives—[Interruption.]—how much money is being invested in waiting.
	The most basic question—the hon. Gentleman will not ask it because he dare not—is whether the Conservatives would match our spending plans. The answer to that question is that they would not, because they do not want to build up the national health service—they want to run it down.

Brian Iddon: The poor health of my constituents has been cited in several reports—from the time of the Black report to the present day. My right hon. Friend knows that I have constantly made representations to him and his predecessor about the fact that the Wigan and Bolton health authority was second from bottom on meeting funding targets in 1997. The position has not advanced greatly since then. Can my right hon. Friend give my constituents an assurance that those gross inequalities in financing will be addressed as a result of the excellent statement that he has just made?

Alan Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He has been a constant advocate of reform of the formula—rightly so. We all recognise that the current formula is far from perfect, although I suspect that it will be difficult to find a perfect formula. However, the changes that we have made mean that this year the Wigan and Bolton health authority will receive an increase in funding for local health services of 10.17 per cent.—the largest increase for any health authority in the north-west. I hope that that is a step towards addressing the concerns that my hon. Friend has constantly raised.

Evan Harris: The additional funding announced by the Secretary of State is welcome. It is right that such increases should come from general taxation and not from an increase in charging—either from new charges or an increase in existing charges. An honest approach would have been for the Government to say before the election that tax rises were needed, rather than skulking back just afterwards with that admission.
	Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that the only taxes that the Government have said that they will not put up to pay for that much-needed investment are fair taxes—direct taxes—and they will instead use indirect, regressive and stealth taxes?
	I cautiously welcome the changes in the formula, because health inequalities need to be tackled and we need to ensure that living costs are recognised, but the Secretary of State seeks to have it both ways. He says that he wants to delegate more power to local primary care trusts, while taking a huge centralising decision yesterday so that all the guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought now to ask a question.

Evan Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman defend his statement that he is decentralising when the Minister in the House of Lords announced that the first call on all this funding will have to be to pay for the NICE guidance? Does he recognise that maximum waiting times are arbitrary and that they create clinical distortion, as they force more urgent patients to wait longer while treatment is given to the politically prioritised patients, who are embarrassing to the Government? Of course, patients should not wait long, but that should be a clinical decision, not a political one.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that giving patients choice is of limited value when they do not have quality services to choose from, when they do not have access and when it is not fair? He talks in his document about patients choosing not to choose and preferring not to travel, but he will know that some patients are too sick to take up the option of travelling that he wants to provide.
	Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the private sector will provide value for money, when he has to pay over the odds for agency-based staff and more expensive private sector staff? Does he recognise that there are no doctors and nurses hanging around waiting to do that work in the private sector? They will be recruited from the pool of doctors and nurses serving the NHS, further limiting capacity.
	Finally, at the last Health questions, I asked the right hon. Gentleman how he will guarantee the quality of treatment abroad. How will he provide for relatives to travel abroad? Who will patients sue? Who will the Government blame? How will consent be given in other languages? The document gives no answer, except that suitable arrangements will be made to enable a relative or friend to accompany the heart surgery patient abroad. That is a new kind of rationing—people can be visited by only one friend or relative.

Alan Milburn: That was pretty tame stuff. I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's position on NICE and the financing of drugs, because I understood that the Liberal Democrats were concerned about the fact that NICE had sometimes made recommendations and not every health authority had taken them up. He is either against the lottery in care or he is not. Which is it? [Interruption.] He says that he is against the lottery in care. That is good news, so I look forward to hearing him support the Government's proposals.
	On maximum waiting times, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that patients' biggest concern about the NHS today is not the quality of care that they receive when they go into hospital, or even when they go to their GP's surgery, but the wait for treatment. It is proper that we address that. Of course, the most serious and urgent conditions should come first. That is why we have taken the right step, through the choice initiative, which is to make choice available to the patients who suffer from the most serious clinical conditions: those waiting for heart operations.
	In my discussions with constituents and when right hon. and hon. Members have raised the issue, I have been struck too many times by the very real dilemma faced by people who have a bit of savings. Those who have bothered to save all their lives and then realise that they need a heart operation face the awful dilemma of either having to wait for treatment or to pay for it. The only choice that they have right now to get a shorter waiting time is to opt out of the NHS.
	I believe profoundly that people should have the choice of being able to stay in the NHS, rather than having to leave it. Yes, that is new, it will be difficult to do, and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked about the maximum six-month wait and so on. That is what we need to achieve, but we shall start with the heart patients and test other approaches and pilot schemes in other parts of the country in due course. We have to get it right. It is right to take a cautious approach but I hope that patients will welcome our initiative, which will be introduced from the middle of next year.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about value for money and the private sector. The answer is that we need to negotiate a good deal on behalf of patients and taxpayers, and that is precisely what we shall do. However, I could not stand here as the Secretary of State for Health and say that, for some ideological reason, we cannot use private sector capacity to treat NHS patients even if that capacity means a better deal for them. We are taking the right approach because what counts is the interests of patients. Their interests should come first.

Chris Pond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Gravesham will certainly welcome his statement, especially his extension of the cost of living supplement to Kent? He will know that that will provide us with a real opportunity not only more properly to reward the staff who work so hard in the service, but to compete effectively with London boroughs in the recruitment and retention of staff.
	My constituents will also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has shown clearly that he sees the NHS as a service with a future that is worth investing in as a publicly funded service free at the point of use and not as a Stalinist creation to be privatised and impoverished.

Alan Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. When I referred in my statement to the representations that I have received, I was thinking of him and Members on both sides of the House who have made representations about Kent, Essex and other places. It is right that we close the gaps in the cost of living supplement.
	I represent a north-eastern constituency, and I know that the cost of living there is different from that in the south-east. I also know that there are huge inequalities in parts of the north and the midlands that do not always pertain in all parts of the south, so it is important that we get the balance right.
	On my hon. Friend's more general point, there is a big debate taking place in the country and it is the right debate to have. We recognise that, for decades, the NHS has not had the resources that it needs, and we need to plug the gap. The question is how best we do that. Labour Members say that the best way is investing in the NHS and reforming it. We do that through general taxation. People will conclude that the Labour party and this Government are the party of choice for patients in the NHS while the Conservative party is the party of charging for patients.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to pass on to all the staff in the NHS—the ancillary, nursing and medical staff—our thanks for what they do for 365 days a year? Will he also acknowledge that the pressures on patients are also pressures on staff?
	As we do not yet know the allocations for our areas, we cannot talk about them even though, given the Secretary of State's description, we await them with interest. However, we know that he is not announcing new money today, because it was announced last week by the Chancellor and in the public expenditure statements.
	How soon does the Secretary of State believe that there will be a significant change in the performance of health authorities with patients waiting more than a year for treatments? I think that I am right in saying that 19 out of the 20 authorities with patients in that position are, in effect, Conservative areas. For example, in the West Sussex and West Surrey health authorities, one in 10 patients wait more than a year. However, 19 out of 20 authorities where no one waits more than a year are Labour areas. I do not wish to make a party point about that, but how soon can that discrepancy be changed? It is not the politicians but the patients who suffer.
	My final point is that, although we often talk about hospitals—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had more than his share of time. Before I ask the Secretary of State to reply, may I remind the House that this is a very important statement. An awful lot of Members wish to contribute and many of them will be disappointed unless everyone asks one question briefly. I hope that the answers will be brief too.

Alan Milburn: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) has not yet received the letter that explains the increases for his area. In West Surrey, the increase will be 9.57 per cent. and, in West Sussex, it will be 9.58 per cent. I think that he will agree that it is a pretty large increase in funding.
	The hon. Gentleman raises considerable issues about how best we distribute NHS resources. We are trying to resolve the tensions by making major changes to the formula for the next financial year, and we are undertaking a fundamental review of the existing formula as a whole. I hope that the review will be concluded later next year, so that it can be implemented from the 2003-04 financial year. The review will need to pay particular attention precisely to some of the issues that he rightly mentions, such as how we get money to the areas of health need while recognising that different parts of the country have different health costs to absorb.

Eric Illsley: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the increased funding and the review of the formula on which it is based. He will be aware that Barnsley health authority is the lowest funded in Trent and one of the lowest funded in the country, despite our levels of need. Does he know that Barnsley faces a £2.1 million shortfall in April next year? Will he reassure me that today's settlement will allow Barnsley health authority to deal with that shortfall and have the money for the new initiatives that it wants to introduce?

Alan Milburn: Yes, I very much hope so. In fact, Barnsley will receive an increase of 10.05 per cent., which is the second largest in the Trent region. I know that there are funding pressures on the NHS; as my hon. Friend knows, there always are. I hope that the statement, the allocation and the guidance that we will issue to the NHS will give enough room for local flexibility so that decisions can be made locally on how best to spend the considerable resources for the benefit of the community that he represents.

Christopher Chope: Can the Secretary of State tell me why he has rejected and ignored the petition presented to the House by me on behalf of thousands of health workers in Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole, which asks for the cost of living supplement to be extended to cover that part of south-east Dorset? Does he recognise that his announcement worsens the situation in which a nurse who lives in Christchurch, where housing costs are much higher than they are in Salisbury or Southampton, has a financial incentive to work in those cities rather than at the local hospital?

Alan Milburn: I understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and NHS staff who work in his area, but we have to proceed a stage at a time. This is the first year in which we have had cost of living supplements. We have not had them before, and certainly not under the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member. We are extending them next year. They will continue to be evaluated and we will consider making further changes to them. The geographical coverage of the supplements and the professional groups who benefit from them will be extended if there is a good case for doing so.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will know that south Cheshire, as an area that has been consistently underfunded for many years, will welcome the settlement. Will he ensure that if private health care facilities are used, and support for travel and other facilities is provided, the costs will be transparent, so that taxpayers know whether they are really getting good value for money or whether that money should have been spent in NHS facilities?

Alan Milburn: Yes, there should be transparency. I am aware of the deficits and the problems that have been long apparent in south Cheshire. That is why this year we increased next year's funding by 9.86 per cent., which is a substantial increase in resources for my hon. Friend's health authority area. I am sure that that money will be used to good effect.
	On the use of the private sector, we need to ensure that we get the best value for money, but it is also worth recognising, as I am sure that my hon. Friend does, that NHS hospitals often do not have the spare capacity. As a consequence, the patient and the Government face a dilemma: should we tell patients to wait longer or say that we will use the spare capacity for the benefit of NHS patients? I think that patients will conclude that the latter course of action is the right one to take.

David Heath: I am increasingly worried by the number of letters and calls that I get from my constituents, especially those who live in the area served by the Royal United hospital of Bath, where the normal waiting time for orthopaedics is 18 months. Although the extra £400 million is extremely welcome, will the Secretary of State explain whether that is additional to the normal allocations and, if not, will it be targeted at specialisms and areas that place the greatest stress on the system? In providing the element of choice, which he suggested in his statement, how will he avoid the pitfall that occurred in the education system, with people being displaced from their local and regional hospitals in favour of people from elsewhere?

Alan Milburn: On the amount of money that is available to tackle waiting lists and the expansion in capacity, the £400 million is embedded in health authority allocations. Each health authority will get a fair share of that and be able to make use of it. We can use that money to increase capacity in a number of ways: to create additional operating theatres or beds, to employ additional staff and to make operations and treatment available outside normal working hours. There is capacity in the NHS and outside it, and it is right that we use that to carry out more NHS operations and thereby reduce waiting times.
	The hon. Gentleman made a good point about choice. It is right to offer patients greater choice because, as he acknowledged, some hospitals have long waiting lists and others have short ones. The problem for patients is that they cannot exercise choice and, in effect, the hospitals choose the patients rather than the other way round. That is precisely what we want to change, and we will do so gradually, in a way that tackles precisely some of the problems and challenges that he raised.

Howard Stoate: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the so-called burgeoning wage bills mentioned by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) are, in my constituents' opinion, much-needed pay rises to improve recruitment and retention of essential staff? How is my right hon. Friend progressing with his plans to set up fast-track elective surgery units throughout the country? Does he have any plans to build one in north-west Kent to service my area?

Alan Milburn: I knew that there would be a sting in the tail. My hon. Friend is right—we cannot have it both ways. We cannot complain about some NHS resources going into pay packets. Few right hon. and hon. Members regard NHS staff as overpaid. Most NHS staff did not enter the service to make a mint; indeed, I know of no member of staff who entered the NHS with that aim. People enter the service for other reasons, and it is right that we reward them properly. We must have a fairer pay system to make sure that rewards go to the right staff.
	Diagnostic and treatment centres are very important because, as my hon. Friend is aware, they will separate elective work from emergency work so that we can protect planned operations and, indeed, emergency work. Those centres are planned for different parts of the country. We will be inviting expressions of interest, not only from the NHS but from the private sector, so that we can locate those centres in parts of the country where we know that we need to do most to reduce waiting times for treatment.

Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will be aware that the statement deals particularly with England and Wales, but this is a national health service, and the principles set out in his latest publication will be applied throughout the kingdom.
	I thank the Secretary of State for the extension of patient choice. Relatives have been able to travel to visit those who have had operations, and most patients who have had serious operations do not want many visitors but relaxation and rest. May I press him to consult the Chancellor and those dealing with the devolved regions about the fact that the amount of money going to health care is going down, as a percentage, under the Barnett formula?

Alan Milburn: Those issues are properly the responsibility of the Assembly and of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the extension of choice. That is an important principle, and we will consult on it with patient and professional groups and the NHS to ensure that we get it right. That change will not happen immediately, but the policy will be gradually introduced from the middle of next year. It will make a fundamental difference to the relationship between patients and NHS services. The NHS is there to serve the patient, and for the first time patients will have the opportunity to choose the NHS service.

Stephen Ladyman: I should have thought that the statement would receive lavish praise from everyone in the House, but it should especially be praised by those of us with constituencies in east Kent. It recognises the additional costs in east Kent and even indirectly recognises the fact that many of my constituents can get to France more easily than they can get to London.
	My only concern, which I would like my right hon. Friend to clarify, is that social services tell me that they do not get access to much of the funding going to health authorities, and yet it is their care for the elderly that could do most to unblock beds. Will he ensure that we strike the right balance between money going to social services and that going to the NHS?

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that resources for social services are to rise by 6.5 per cent. in cash terms for the next financial year, and that health services and social services now have the legal powers to pool their budgets or to form a single organisation. I would encourage more health services and local social services to do that—to pool their budgets, co-operate rather than compete with one another, and consider the possibility of forming local care trusts.
	Like all of us, my hon. Friend recognises that our constituents do not care whether the funding comes from the health service or from social services. All they want is the package of care. Too often, health services and social services have been nudging resources and responsibilities backwards and forwards, when they should have been concentrating on the needs of the patient.

Julian Brazier: Although I welcome the extension of the cost of living supplement to Kent, does the Secretary of State realise that all the options for east Kent's acute hospitals involve breaking up our cancer centre? Under any of the four options, complex chemotherapy will not be possible in Canterbury, as it is now, and radiology in the brand new linear accelerator will not be provided with the kind of medical cover that is available at present. Does he intend east Kent to become the first region to have its cancer centre closed?

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman has raised such issues with me before, and he knows that they are a matter for consultation. It is inappropriate for me to comment on them now. We will await the results of consultation, he will make his representations, as will others, and Ministers will make the appropriate decision. I am glad that he welcomed the increase in funding—an increase of 9.85 per cent. He should talk to those who represent his party on the Front Bench and ask whether they would be prepared to match those increases. I suspect that they would not.

Joan Ryan: First, at my local hospital, Chase Farm, there is a support group called Heart Throbs, who do fantastic work supporting people who need heart operations and their families throughout the process. The group will be extremely pleased with the news today about heart operations, as a number of its members have not survived while waiting for them.
	Secondly, we often hear managers in the health service knocked, but many areas of the health service are under-managed. That prevents us from achieving the capacity necessary to provide the hospital services that our patients need. Some of the financing being made available today will rightly be spent on managing our health service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should pay tribute to the health service managers who choose to work in the NHS rather than in any other office, because they are committed to the NHS?

Alan Milburn: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's local voluntary organisation, which is clearly doing a good job of work. She will see in the consultation paper that we issued today our plans to involve the voluntary sector—such as those organisations offering care and support for heart patients—in the new initiative to offer choice to people. If people are to exercise choice, it is important that they do so in an informed way and that the options are fully explained to them. One of the best ways of doing that is by involving the voluntary sector, not just the statutory sector.
	On my hon. Friend's second point, NHS managers do a brilliant job of work, sometimes in difficult circumstances. As we delegate and devolve resources and responsibilities from Whitehall and from health authorities to local primary care trusts, it will be important that the trusts have adequate management resources to ensure that they can fulfil their responsibilities and give local communities the services that they deserve.

Desmond Swayne: What satisfaction does the Secretary of State take from the ambition expressed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the House earlier today to match by 2004 the European average health expenditure as it was two years before the end of the last century?

Alan Milburn: I take some satisfaction from it because it is an ambition to expand the NHS, while the hon. Gentleman's policy is to contract it.

Kevin Hughes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and congratulate him on securing a great deal from the Treasury; that must have been pretty difficult—[Laughter.] Opposition Members obviously have no experience of the Treasury; at any rate, they are out of touch with it.
	What guarantees can my right hon. Friend give my constituents that, this time, more of the extra money going in reaches the front line? That will mean that my constituents will not have to wait, either to see a GP or for an out-patient appointment with a consultant.

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The settlement is very generous indeed and the extra resources available for the next financial year will make a real difference to patients and the NHS. As he said, it is important that the resources get to the front line and make a difference. When he sees the planning guidance issued to the NHS to accompany the announcement of the resources, he will see that it is a slim document with a limited set of priorities for local health services. They should have the flexibility to concentrate on the things that matter to patients: making sure that emergency services are available for people when they need them; getting accident and emergency waiting times down; and ensuring that the waiting times to see GPs and consultants are brought down. As he knows, those are ambitious plans, but we can achieve them only if we keep investing in and reforming the NHS.

Paul Goodman: Does the Secretary of State believe, in connection with today's spending announcement and, indeed, future spending announcements, that spending on health would be better financed either wholly or partly by a hypothecated health tax?

Alan Milburn: I am a keen supporter of funding the NHS through general taxation.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend's statement will be most welcome in my constituency, following the statement earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Building on capital investments in mental health, oncology, day surgery and so on in the area, today's statement is a tremendous step forward.
	I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about the plans for next year that he mentioned. As he is aware, in some polarised areas, the formulas that distributed money through the old standard spending assessment were hugely problematic because they dealt with averages rather than pockets of deprivation. Will he ensure that his new formula on distribution to primary care trusts does not make the same mistake as the Tories' SSA formula and addresses the needs of deprived communities?

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is important, as we put the new formula in place, that cash goes to the areas of greatest health need; we must do that. We have already made a health inequalities adjustment to the existing formula. I expect precisely the same considerations to be embedded in the new formula. It is important that health authorities, given the resources that are available to them this year, apply an appropriate pace of change policy to their local primary care trusts and the money that they get, so that we can begin to close the gap between those PCTs that are over capitation and those that are under capitation. In that way, we can get a fairer settlement, not just for health authorities but for the new PCTs.

Lawrie Quinn: Today's announcement will be welcome in North Yorkshire. Can my right hon. Friend tell the many people in my constituency who have difficulty finding an NHS dentist whether it will help them, in conjunction with the new PCT that will be set up at the beginning of next April?

Alan Milburn: Substantial extra investment is going into North Yorkshire for investment in health services; there has been an increase of 9.84 per cent. for 2002–03, which is a big sum of money. It will be for local PCTs and the strategic health authority to decide how best to deploy that money. Some of it is earmarked for national priorities which, we believe, are patients' priorities: waiting times, primary care, and investment in cancer and coronary care. But the overwhelming bulk of resources will be deployed by local PCTs and health authorities. They must address the pressing health needs of their local communities. If there is a need to invest in dentistry, they will have to look at that.

Roger Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the massive cash injection that he has given to Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, which serves my constituency. Some years ago, after years of being starved of resources by the Tories, that health authority published an annual report entitled "The River Runs Dry", simply to get its message across. He is absolutely right to say that, as we build capacity in south-west London by investing in more nurses, doctors and surgeons, it is vital that we take forward fundamental reform of the way in which the NHS identifies and responds to health care priorities and needs in our local communities.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a special responsibility on some of the new organisations that are being called into existence by his reforms within the NHS family—such as the Nelson and West Merton primary care trust in my community—to work with community health trusts, which will be wound up because of the reforms? We must ensure that the new organisations pick up the good experience and expertise within existing organisations and, at the same time, develop their own best practice and spread it to other organisations in the local health community.

Alan Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments. Substantial investment—about 9.8 per cent. growth in the next financial year—is going to the local health service in his area. It is very important that that money is used wisely and well. We shall seek particularly to ensure that strengthened partnerships between local primary care trusts, local government and the private and voluntary sectors provide first-class services to patients.
	The national health service cannot do it alone. As we know, health and social services are two sides of the same coin, and the work of the national health service—in conjunction with that of the private, voluntary and local government sectors—is equally important in resolving some of the health inequality and deprivation problems that exist in my hon. Friend's constituency, as they do in all hon. Members' constituencies.

Point of Order

Jimmy Wray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a complaint about the scandalous and irresponsible reporting of the BBC's "Watchdog" programme. Today, it has issued a press release naming and shaming Members of Parliament. However, I am just back from Europe, where I have been working as part of my job as a full member of the Western European Union and of the Council of Europe, addressing issues such as space application, migration and demography. We have also been dealing with the events in Chechnya, in other European countries, and in every other country where there are human rights violations and stress.
	My voting record is low because I am sent to those various countries in Europe. One of the nice aspects of that work is that, every year, I receive a letter from the Prime Minister telling me that I am very hard working. The bad thing is that I am now being prevented from doing that job, which the BBC does not think is important. I am therefore resigning as a full member of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I cannot take scandalous reports saying that I am not known in my constituency, when the fact is that I have had the second highest constituency vote in Glasgow. The scandalous reporting of the BBC's "Watchdog" is preventing me from doing my job.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for controlling the behaviour of broadcasters. However, he has had the opportunity today to put his position precisely on the record.

BILL PRESENTED

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment)

Mr. Secretary Reid presented a Bill to provide for the extension of the amnesty period fixed by section 2 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 63].

Common Fisheries Policy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Elliot Morley: As the House knows, it is customary to hold a fisheries debate each year before the December Council, which decides the total allowable catches and quotas for the following year. This is an important occasion that affords an opportunity for comment by all hon. Members from fisheries constituencies as well as those with a more general interest in fisheries management. I am very pleased that the House authorities have allowed us to have a full day's debate on the subject.
	I should first make it clear that this is not a scrutiny debate and that some important European Scrutiny Committee recommendations for debate in Committee remain outstanding. Therefore, although this is an opportunity for a general annual debate, there will be further opportunities in that Committee to debate other aspects of fisheries management. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome the opportunity to discuss those issues in detail.
	Before outlining the Commission's proposals for next year's TACs and quotas, I shall open the debate in the traditional way by reflecting on the dangers faced by fishermen at sea. This year, nine fishermen have lost their lives while at sea. Although that is an improvement on last year's truly appalling figure of 33 fatalities and 39 losses of vessels, it is nevertheless nine too many. I am sure that the whole House joins me in expressing sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who have been lost.
	Training can help to instil a culture of safety. I know, however, that the industry has been concerned about the cost of training courses. I have therefore taken the decision that, for the next three years, fishermen should be able to attend basic safety training courses free of charge. The courses have been free since April. The grant aid comes from our new financial instrument for fisheries guidance schemes, with funding both from the EU and the fisheries Departments in the UK. It is important that all fishermen who are eligible take advantage of those courses, and I am sure that the various fishermen's organisations will be encouraging them to do so. Fishing remains a very hazardous occupation and it is important that all within the industry work to improve the safety culture on board fishing vessels. The Government will certainly play their part in working with them.
	As for developments in the past year, the Commission has issued its Green Paper on common fisheries policy reform, about which I shall say a few words later. Additionally, the European Court of Auditors has published a detailed report on third country agreements, which I think are of some interest to hon. Members. Recovery programmes for cod and hake were also introduced.
	Following the pressure that has been applied for years in our debates, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has issued its advice earlier this year than in the past, which I think that hon. Members will find most welcome. Additionally, for the first time, I organised a press conference to make the advice public and to discuss it in detail. We and the Commission have been pressing for the advice to be produced sooner. In previous years, it has sometimes not emerged until November; this year, it was available in October, which gave us valuable breathing space to analyse it. Unfortunately, the Commission has been late in producing its TACs and quotas, which were made available only on 4 December. Nevertheless, I am glad that they are available in time for this debate so that hon. Members can discuss them.
	We have also been able to provide the House with a document outlining the approach to the proposals, and I shall refer to what has been proposed and will listen with interest to hon. Members' comments. As hon. Members will appreciate, however, more work will have to be done in formulating the United Kingdom's response between now and the Fisheries Council on 17 and 18 December. As they will also appreciate, I shall need an opportunity to discuss the proposals in some depth with the fishing industry, to hear its views and to listen to its priorities.
	Hon. Members should also be aware that the Commission has to await the completion of various third country negotiations before it can finalise its proposals. The main case in point is the European Union-Norway fisheries agreement, which has not yet been finalised primarily because of the very difficult negotiations on the linked issue of blue whiting.

Anthony Steen: We always enjoy the Minister's annual presentation on fish. He mentioned third country agreements. Is he concerned, as I am, about the Spanish-Moroccan agreement, which has not yet come into effect? If it does, the Spanish will want to come north rather than south.

Elliot Morley: I was going to touch on some of those issues later. However, the Spanish-Moroccan agreement is dead. The Moroccans made it very clear that they were not prepared to agree to the negotiations or to the proposals that were on offer. I think that they want to take control of those waters and are not really interested in a deal with the Spanish. Consequently, about 300 boats that previously fished in those waters have nowhere else to go. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the North sea and the fishing areas in which our own fleets operate. However, there is no chance of those boats fishing in other waters because most of them are designed for that particular fishery, which is a predominately coastal squid fishery. Those boats will therefore be decommissioned and a financial package has been agreed for the Spanish Government to take them out of their fishing fleet. It will also mean that some thousands of fishing jobs are lost in that country.

Archy Kirkwood: The whole House is grateful to the Minister for securing this debate at this time. He has encountered difficulties in respect of such debates and this is a valuable opportunity. I should like to press him on something that he said about scrutiny. He is right that the Norway bilateral agreement will not be secured until the end of the month. Will he use his good offices early in the new year, when the House returns after the Christmas recess, to ensure that a European Standing Committee can debate the outcomes when they are all known? That will enable hon. Members to consider the totality of what faces the industry next year. If he could say something encouraging about that, it would help us during this debate.

Elliot Morley: That is a very reasonable point. I shall certainly discuss the matter with the Committee. I am very willing to participate and give hon. Members the opportunity to consider the issues.

Alex Salmond: I congratulate the Minister on securing a full day's debate. Such a debate has been a long-standing ambition for him and a number of other hon. Members, so let us give him credit where credit is due for getting it out of the powers that be in this place.
	The North sea has a number of stocks that are undergoing a strong recovery, as we know from scientific advice. It is to be hoped that the TAC that has been agreed will reflect that recovery and increase fishing opportunities. However, if the TAC for cod remains very low, it might be impossible for fishermen in a mixed fishery to take up opportunities in respect of haddock and other stocks. What thought has the Minister given to that problem and how does he see a way forward on ensuring that the maximum fishing opportunities are available to fishermen in the North sea?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right that that is a potential problem. I shall comment on it when I deal with the Commission's proposals, its reasons for them and the reaction of the UK Government. The problem to which he refers relates to managing a fishery where some stocks are in severe trouble—there is no doubt that the cod stock is in trouble—but other stocks are not. Of course, that is in the nature of a mixed fishery, and I shall speak about the matter in a moment.
	Let me spell out the Commission's broad approach. First, with regard to stocks for which the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea recommends a recovery plan—predominantly cod and hake—the Commission proposes to treat 2002 as the first year in a long-term process of reductions in fishing mortality and TACs. The stocks approached in that way include cod in the North sea, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned, as well as cod in the Irish sea, and west of Scotland, northern hake and nephrops in southern waters. The latter is a stock in which the UK has no interest.
	A second category of stocks is subject to the same approach. These stocks are not recommended for recovery plans by ICES as they are not considered to be in a dire state, but are regarded as being fished outside safe limits and have very low biomass levels. We cannot ignore that scientific advice. Stocks that fall into this category include western channel sole, Irish sea haddock and west of Scotland whiting.
	The third category—this is the difficult one identified by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—covers stocks that are associated with those in the first and second categories. It could include, for example, species caught with cod and hake. With regard to such stocks, the Commission proposes to reduce TACs as a complementary measure. It made an attempt to do the same thing last year, although in that event it recommended a blanket 20 per cent. cut. We strongly argued against such a cut because we did not feel that the science justified it. The Commission then reduced that figure to 10 per cent. This year, it has adopted a more flexible approach, but many of the cuts that it is suggesting again relate to stocks that are not in difficulty, but are linked with stocks that are.
	As I think the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, the matter needs to be carefully thought through. Account must be taken of the fact that we operate in a mixed fishery and that there could be a danger of displacement if fishermen are cut off from particular stocks that are not in difficulty and then move on to other fishing. Those issues are serious and not easy to resolve. In some cases, however, I do not think that the Commission itself has thought them through clearly, and we will have to discuss them in some detail at the Fisheries Council.

Andrew George: The Minister rightly said that the first category included stocks that are in a very severe state. In certain areas, they are on the verge of collapse and will be destroyed if we do not take the necessary measures. However, with regard to hake, for which a recovery programme is being implemented, does he accept that fishermen are concerned that catches in area 7—where hake catches are still relatively good and catch sizes are reasonably large, although not by any means acceptable—are different from juvenile hake catches in area 8? There is considerable concern about the catching of juvenile hake by fishermen in other nations. As hake is a migratory stock, such fishing will clearly have an impact in area 7, so in the area where it occurs an increase is needed in minimum mesh sizes and minimum landing sizes should be increased by up to 40 cm.

Elliot Morley: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I concede that fishermen in the south-west are saying that there has been unacceptable juvenile mortality further south in relation to the hake fishery. It is for that reason that we agreed last year, as part of the hake recovery plan, that mesh size in the bay of Biscay would increase from 17 mm to 100 mm. That is a very big jump. It does not significantly affect our industry, which has traditionally used larger meshes, but is designed to reduce juvenile mortality. I agree that such reduction is one of the top priorities—indeed, it is probably the top priority—of the hake recovery plan.
	The total spawning biomass of hake is at dangerous levels. In that respect, we must have an eye on overall fishing mortality. That is where the impact of our own industry comes into play, even though it is catching bigger fish. Minimum landing size is an issue, but it cannot be increased unless mesh size is also increased. That is rightly being done and I set great store on it following my discussions with fishermen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	The overall picture is one of seriously diminishing opportunities for a range of stocks, although there are one or two bright spots. When the EU-Norway talks are completed, we expect some increases in a range of quotas, although that does not go all the way in mitigating what the Commission is proposing. However, we must accept that the reductions in opportunity were inevitable to some degree. We cannot ignore the stark scientific assessment of some stocks, although I must point out that I am disappointed—the industry has already spelt out its disappointment—with some of the proposals, which seem to be inconsistent, to move away from the scientific advice that is available and to propose TAC levels without any clear basis being apparent. I have always tried to be consistent and I told the industry that when scientific advice makes it clear that we have to take action on reducing catches, we must take that action, even though it might mean difficult and painful decisions. On the other side of the coin, if proposals go beyond the scientific advice, we should question them very closely and demand justifications.
	Some of the TACs that have been proposed do not seem to take account of the difficult and painful measures that the industry has already taken in good faith. It has taken such measures in the Irish sea and deserves to be congratulated on its co-operation with us on the Irish sea cod recovery programmes. There is a call for a blanket cut on a number of stocks of real economic value, despite a lack of scientific advice, while in one or two cases scientists have recommended increases. We need to challenge such proposals and I can assure the House that that will be one of my objectives in the Fisheries Council.
	One of the prime examples of proposals that need to be considered further relates to nephrops. The Commission has proposed what seem to be inappropriate cuts that are designed to complement cod recovery. Again, the matter is linked with by-catch issues. By-catch problems are very serious—if the science and evidence exist. I am convinced neither of that nor that the Commission has understood our research, which we presented to it to back up our argument.

Angus Robertson: Does the Minister know that Spain is in a similar position to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom on nephrops? Is he optimistic about an opportunity to find commonality of interest between Spain and various parts of the UK on nephrops in the Council of Ministers?

Elliot Morley: Spain has an interest, but it is in different stocks. Our interests are mainly in the Irish sea and the North sea, where Spain does not have a quota for nephrops. However, I agree that one or two other countries have a joint interest with us on such issues.
	We have always been responsible and argued on the basis of science. On last year's 10 per cent. reduction, we presented the Commission with scientific evidence to support our view that the cod by-catch in the North sea nephrops fishery was low and did not justify such cuts. We intend to challenge the Commission's scientific analysis on the basis of our considerably detailed work.

Joan Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the Irish sea fishing communities, which have genuinely worked together. Will he consider the results for the past two years of the cod recovery programme in the Irish sea? Many Fleetwood fishermen do not believe that they have been given the time or the chance to prove its success. Instead, savage cuts have been introduced without consideration of the programme and how we can build on the past two years.

Elliot Morley: I accept my hon. Friend's comments. The industry has been responsible and has genuinely participated in the recovery plans, and we appreciate its input. There are encouraging signs for cod, and it would be helpful if the industry could experience some benefits from its sacrifices. We will argue for that strongly with the Commission.
	We have asked the industry for its reactions to the proposals. We will take time to examine them all in detail and consider their implications. As I have said, we intend to work with the industry and other member states to ensure that we bring about a fair, effective, reasoned and reasonable end to the negotiations, which will be difficult.
	The attitude in the Council of Ministers has changed for the better. There is a much more serious attitude towards following the science. The Commission is not in the game of bumping up figures arbitrarily so that they can be negotiated down and presented as an improvement. It will not be easy to get the Commission to move from the proposals because it is adamant that it is in the business of sustainability and protecting fish stocks. We share that ambition, but I repeat that the proposals must be based on good science, and a case has to be sound to convince the industry, which will ultimately have to make sacrifices for the recoveries. Persuading the Commission of that view will be one of our primary objectives in the negotiations.
	Deep water species and TACs are of interest to some hon. Members. Last year, we rejected the idea of quotas for a range of species, although we accept that there is serious anxiety about the state of deep water stocks. We support management that is based on effort-control regimes rather than on simply allocating quotas. We believe that the latter would encourage increased fishing to bump up track records on quotas.
	It should also be taken into account that some of the deep water fisheries are used by non-EU fleets. It would therefore be better to bring them under the control of regional fisheries organisations—the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in the case that we are considering—to ensure proper management of the stocks.
	The Government generally support third country fisheries agreements because they maintain traditional fishing opportunities for EU distant water vessels and provide socio-economic benefits for some regions that depend on fisheries. They also allow third countries to realise the value of fisheries resources that they do not wish or are unable to exploit. However, there is an important caveat. Third country agreements should provide value for money to the Community, promote environmentally sustainable fishing, which means proper enforcement and management, and be coherent in the context of Community development objectives for third countries.
	Some agreements need to be examined closely for their benefits. We benefit from third country agreements such as the Greenland fishery agreement, which is especially important to the UK. We must ensure that the Community does not export its surplus fishing capacity to developing countries, which are often unable to monitor fishing effectively and/or do damage to marine ecosystems. For many developing countries, fish provides a substantial and vital source of protein. Fishing agreements must not jeopardise that source.
	Developing countries increasingly want to develop their fishing industries, and we should support that. There are opportunities for co-operation and joint agreements between EU member states and fleets and those developing countries.

Robert Smith: I acknowledge the importance of the Minister's last point. However, if we are to have sustainable fisheries in our waters, the Government must recognise that they are part of the problem because they license more capacity than the waters can sustain. They should consider ways in which they can be part of the solution, and decommission the excess capacity so that there is a balance between our fishing fleet and sustainability.

Elliot Morley: That is a fair point, and I shall deal with this year's decommissioning round shortly.
	The Commission has produced a Green Paper on the review of the common fisheries policy. Hon. Members are familiar with its contents. It goes a long way towards tackling many anxieties that hon. Members have expressed over the years and proposes the sort of changes to the CFP that we support. The Green Paper pulls no punches; it is a frank and well-balanced critique of the CFP. It points out its deficiencies, including poor stock conservation, the use of often inappropriate subsidies, and uneven control and enforcement, while making a strong case for a common policy on fisheries conservation, which is important in EU waters.
	Recent difficulties in fisheries management mean that I am more convinced than ever of the need for a common conservation policy. We cannot manage fish stocks unilaterally.

Alex Salmond: The Minister is enthusiastic about the Green Paper. I understand that because it is probably the best document from the Commission on fishing for a generation, although there is nothing much with which to compare it. None the less, his enthusiasm is noted. Is he enthusiastic about the Green Paper's reference to substantially enhanced payments not only for decommissioning but for tie-up funding? If he supports large parts of the document, will the Government consider that aspect of the Green Paper?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman knows my views on tie-up money. Although I have an open mind about any approach, we must consider carefully the most appropriate use of public moneys, the priorities for its use and the justification for schemes. I remain to be convinced that tie-up grants are the best way forward. I suspect that the debate on that will continue.
	I want some elements of the CFP to be retained. I am sure that that applies to other hon. Members. For example, the case for the six and 12-mile limits is so overwhelming that I have argued for them to be made permanent. They are important for safeguarding the needs of the inshore fleet. We need to take its needs into account. The limits also make sense from a conservation perspective. No one supports the end of relative stability, including the Hague preference. They are important elements of the CFP, which offer security to the industry, especially in difficult times. The Commission and other member states also support relative stability and I am confident that that will continue into 2003 and beyond.

Andrew George: Does the Minister agree that, following the publication of the Green Paper, future debates on fishing in the House should be considerably more mature? We spent much time in the past speculating on whether we would be able to retain the six and 12-mile limits and relative stability. We can now move forward and stop wasting so much time speculating on dire scenarios.

Elliot Morley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are far too many scare stories about what is going to happen after 2002. I suspect that, when we reach agreement, some of the darker stories that we have been hearing will be shown to have been yet more of the Euro-myths that we have had to listen to for many years.
	We are arguing strongly for greater involvement by the fishing industry in the way in which the CFP operates—but not only the fishing industry. No one would dispute that the industry is the primary stakeholder in the policy, but there is also a role for environmentalists, consumers, sport fishermen and members of the general public, who have an interest in the health of our seas and in marine biodiversity.
	One of the strengths of the new Department in which I serve—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—is that sustainability is at the heart of everything that it does and of all the policies that it is trying to develop. There is no contradiction between the objectives of environmentalists—healthy and strong marine biodiversity—and of the fishing industry, which has every interest in marine conservation and biodiversity.
	For the House's information, the timetable for the review has shifted slightly in recent months. The European Parliament has been unable to complete its report on the CFP, and the Commission rightly wishes to hear the Parliament's opinion before proceeding. I therefore expect the Commission communication to be produced in January next year. The communication will set out recommendations for subsequent legislative proposals for decision by the end of 2002.
	We do not yet have a full idea of the proposals that the Commission intends to produce, but it has said that we should expect them to cover multi-annual TAC setting—a policy that has been raised many times in debate, and one that the UK strongly supports. The proposals could also cover access, fleet structure, control and external issues. That shows that the Commission is moving in the right direction, and I shall offer it every encouragement in its efforts to forge a new, more meaningful, more flexible common fisheries policy that takes much greater account of the regional differences between the various fishing fleets of the European Union.

Lawrie Quinn: With regard to the proposals from the Commission, has my hon. Friend been able to determine what level of consultation will take place in our fishing communities around the coast—the key stakeholders that he mentioned earlier? Such consultation would enable our fishing communities to feel that proper account had been taken of their feelings in relation to the Commission's proposals.

Elliot Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has been very much involved in this process, and that he is anxious to ensure that the views of the industry are fed through. He will be pleased to know that a series of seminars and conferences has been held around the country, to allow fishermen to express their views on the common fisheries policy and the post-2002 reforms. The industry has been very active in that process, and has made a range of proposals. The joint document produced by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation was extremely well argued, and it is clear from the Green Paper that it strongly influenced the way in which the Commission was thinking. That is a good example of the way in which the industry can feed through its ideas.
	On decommissioning, one of the key problems faced by the fishing industry is the imbalance between the size of the fleet and the stocks available to it, as was mentioned earlier. To help the industry to address the problem, we have introduced a £6 million decommissioning scheme in England, which, taken with the schemes run by the devolved Administrations, means that £36 million of public funds have been made available to the industry this year for decommissioning.
	While decommissioning has an important role, it should be seen as only one tool. The downside to decommissioning is that it takes vessels out of the fleet, which has an impact on regional ports. So, although there is an important role for decommissioning, we should not regard it as the only fisheries conservation management tool. It is one of a range of measures that we need to introduce. There is, however, no doubt that taking some of the capacity out of the UK fleet helps the viability of those who remain in it.

Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he was shocked by the fact that the decommissioning scheme introduced in Scotland has been oversubscribed by 100 per cent. in the north-east, an important area in which many of the newer, larger boats are based? Is that not a shattering blow to the Scottish fishing industry? Does he agree that it does not augur well for the future?

Elliot Morley: We need to be fairly shock-resistant when dealing with fisheries. I was not altogether surprised, because decommissioning has been very useful to the industry, not only in helping people who want to leave the industry. The evidence of the previous decommissioning schemes shows that a lot of the decommissioning money has been recycled in the form of investment in the industry. I am sure that some people see the decommissioning scheme not as a way of exiting the industry but as a way of reinvesting in different parts of it. I suspect that that is one explanation of the high level of interest in it.

Alex Salmond: Is not the key to the effectiveness of the decommissioning scheme—which was long resisted by the previous Conservative Government—the question of whether the quota allocation of the decommissioned boats remains in the sector? Would it not be the worst of all possible ironies if boats were decommissioned, whether in the north-east of Scotland or elsewhere, and their quota allowed to leak outside their area or outside the country?

Elliot Morley: This is a difficult issue, and I have discussed with hon. Members before, both in the House and in Committee, how we should try to keep a fisheries quota within the region in which it has operated. I would very much like to do that. Unfortunately, all sorts of legal difficulties are involved in achieving that in practical terms. There has always been movement of quota around the country, and there is a need for some flexibility in the buying or leasing of quota, as that helps the producer organisations to manage their fisheries. The producer organisations are very well organised these days, and they are looking for opportunities to buy quota in their areas. That will keep the quota in the region and will be to the benefit of their members. I would be glad to see that, and I hope that it will happen.

Andrew George: Following the intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), may I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to intervene on the referral of the Shetland and Orkney quota schemes—and, by implication, the new Duchy quota scheme—to the European Commission? Those schemes support new entrants to the industry and protect quota in vulnerable fishing communities. That referral will clearly have a detrimental effect on the Duchy quota scheme in Cornwall, as it will delay its implementation. Will the Minister express a view on that matter and, if he is concerned about it, will he intervene to ensure that the investigation is completed as quickly as possible?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I shall be happy to give my personal view on that. It is a very good idea for local communities to come together in a co-operative way to ensure that their quota is kept in the area and managed for the benefit of the region. I must make it clear that state aid rules apply to this issue, and I would not want unfair subsidies going to one region to the detriment of another. That would not be fair. As I understand it, both the Duchy Fish Quota Company and the Shetland scheme are based on commercial operations, and the quota is leased at a commercial rate. I also understand that there are no plans to restrict this in a discriminatory way. On that basis, they seem to meet state aid rules. We take an interest in the matter, although it is one for the Commission. We shall certainly examine the Commission's concerns, but as long as state aid rules are not breached, there is no reason why the schemes should not continue to operate.

Anthony Steen: Has all the decommissioning money for the past couple of years been spent in the south-west, especially in Brixham? Was it at Amsterdam that the Minister negotiated to ensure that 50 per cent. of the foreign catch is landed in English ports, and does that help?

Elliot Morley: The decommissioning scheme was a UK scheme. It was not restricted to any one region and all the money was fully utilised. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Amsterdam treaty negotiations, which do not relate to the economic links conditions that we have negotiated and successfully applied. He may be interested to know that I shall say a few words about the outcome, although I want to conclude soon.

Malcolm Savidge: My hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way to so many Members. I agree with the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on decommissioning, but he made an earlier intervention on tie-ups. My clear impression of the joint meetings that the industry had with us down here is that it believes that decommissioning is a much better answer than tie-ups. Decommissioning is a long-term solution to the industry's problems, whereas tie-ups pour money into a potentially bottomless hole.

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is right. There were differences of view in the fishing industry, but there is a strong school of thought that decommissioning is a greater priority for available funds.

Alex Salmond: I have here the Scottish Fishermen's Federation brief for this very debate. It expresses firm support for tie-ups as part of fisheries management policy, so I wonder whether the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) managed to attend the meeting at which he thinks the federation said something that it most certainly did not say.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that there was a difference of view in the Scottish industry over tie-up grant. He will find that there was a slight difference of view between the west and east coasts. I must move on.
	On stock recovery programmes and technical measures, the UK has played an important development role and there is a great deal of scope for dealing with some of our conservation problems. We intend to take the measures forward in conjunction with the industry. On quota management generally, I appreciate that the reductions in total allowable catches and quotas for 2001 have resulted in many fishermen eking out their allocations and making difficult decisions about what to catch and when, although many have been successful. I am also pleased that good prices in general have helped in that respect.
	We have tried to help the industry out through quota swaps and the Department has a good record of managing our fisheries effectively. Nevertheless, it is important that all sectors play their part in ensuring that measures designed to conserve fish stocks are respected.
	Fixed quota allocations have been reviewed and they seem to be a success—that is certainly the conclusion of the review. They have achieved greater stability and have greatly facilitated the process of securing extra quota through quota swaps, both in the UK and internationally through the Department.
	Economic links were referred to by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). Those arrangements are a further example of how we have tried to address a particular problem realistically and pragmatically. Last year, I informed the House of the economic links arrangements and the benefits that they have brought. The first full year in which they were used was 1999: landings in the UK by foreign-owned, but UK-registered, vessels increased by 70 per cent., an additional £3 million was spent on goods and services in our ports and more than 300 tonnes of valuable quota—sole, predominantly—was made available for redistribution to our inshore fleet.
	I am pleased to tell the House that the benefits achieved in 1999 were maintained in 2000, and I am hopeful that the trend will continue throughout this year. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the trend in respect of foreign-owned, but UK-registered, ships has been downward in the past couple of years.
	On grant aid, the principal aim of DEFRA is sustainability in environmental, economic and social terms, and one of our objectives is to promote sustainable management and prudent use of natural resources, domestically and internationally. Our sea fisheries are an important national resource, so we have involved the industry in the priorities that we want, and the schemes that we have identified for the financial instrument of fisheries grant programme involve such matters as increasing the value of fishermen's catch by helping them to maintain the quality of fish at sea and in port.
	There are grants to help fishermen to transfer their fishing from pressure stocks to others, and that includes grants to switch to more environmentally friendly gear. There are also grants to help the processing industry to develop new markets, improve efficiency and minimise waste. I encourage all in the industry and environmental groups to consider how they can make the most of the grant aid available.
	We have also encouraged the industry to benefit from adopting electronic working. DEFRA and other fisheries Departments want to encourage the industry to explore the possibilities, including electronic marketing and electronic transfer of information, with which it is becoming increasingly involved.
	We commissioned a report on the impact of e-commerce on the UK fishing industry, using independent consultants, and in October we presented the findings to an industry seminar, sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry and organised by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. We also showed what a Government web portal for the industry might look like. The feedback is encouraging and we shall want to consult the industry further on the report's recommendation on how best to take the matter forward.
	I do not underestimate the difficulties for the industry in the forthcoming Fisheries Council negotiations. Some cuts are justified on the science and some present difficulties, but we must remember that stocks need to be protected. We must achieve sustainable fisheries management and stocks that are below their safe biomass must be rebuilt.
	It is fair to say that some decisions should have been taken years ago, as some catches have been unsustainable for a long time. It will take years to achieve recovery for those stocks, but it can be done. I emphasise yet again that I have been consistent and that I have followed the science. That consistency also means that we should challenge cuts that go beyond the science, and I shall ensure that that is done in the forthcoming negotiations.
	The new atmosphere in the Fisheries Council means that the posturing of old has gone. We must concentrate on sustainability and responsible fisheries management, but I emphasise once again that the Commission is deadly serious about its proposals. The negotiations will not be easy and the Commission will not simply roll over because we disagree with it. We must make a strong and robust scientific case to the Commission, and we will.
	There are bright spots. We expect some stocks to increase and I am pleased that prices generally have been good. Consumers are prepared to pay a good price for a top-quality product. The inshore sector has done well, particularly with shellfish, but clearly I recognise that there are problems in the industry. They key one is sustainability and the need to put in place management for the long-term, for the sake of the marine environment and a viable, sustainable, financially secure future for the industry. I believe that we can do that.

Ann Winterton: I welcome the debate, although I do not know how many fishing debates the Under–Secretary has introduced and wound up. He seems to have been fisheries spokesman man and boy, in opposition and in government. He probably feels that way too.

Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton: I am delighted to give way so early in my speech.

Lawrie Quinn: I thank the hon. Lady. Perhaps I may offer some information. During a search on a website, I asked that very question and the answer is 191.

Ann Winterton: I am grateful for the information. The Minister looks very well on it: he is obviously eating a lot of fish, as I did at lunchtime.
	Let me echo what the Minister said, and express our deepest sympathy for the families of the nine fishermen who lost their lives this year. We must also not forget those injured at sea during the past year.
	As an island nation, we have a particular affinity with the sea and respect those
	"that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters".
	For centuries, fishermen have braved the elements around our shores and further afield, and pitted their skills against the harshest and most unpredictable of elements, the sea. We politicians have added to the stress that they experience, not least by imposing stifling European Union regulations. While it is difficult now to find a customs officer, a coastguard or even a policeman around our harbours, fisheries officers can be found checking boxes of fish. That contrasts with the situation in the Scottish fisheries department, which allows over-quota landings to be policed by the pelagic sector itself.

Alex Salmond: I think that we missed the full import of the hon. Lady's attack on the Scottish pelagic sector, which is generally recognised to be one of the most successful management regimes ever, and the most responsible. Will she explain in more detail why she is developing this anti-Scottish attitude? I should have thought that her party was in enough trouble north of the border.

Ann Winterton: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that he is talking to someone who is half-Scottish. He will have to do a damn sight better than that. Perhaps I should remind him of the minutes of the meeting of the pelagic sub-committee of the Shetland Fishermen's Association, which took place on 21 September. I shall quote from them—and I am sure that, when I have done so, he will say how pleased he is to have been put right.
	The section from which I shall quote is headed "Control and enforcement" and it states:
	"Josie Simpson reported his disappointment at a recent pelagic enforcement and monitoring committee meeting where it was made clear the fisheries department intend to leave it up to the industry to clean up over-quota landings."
	Will that do for the hon. Gentleman, or would he like me to quote more? There it is, in black and white.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton: I want to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman will probably want to intervene later, when I start dealing with the part of the world that he represents. [Interruption.] I know that he represents Orkney and Shetland. I shall deal with issues relating to that area later: that is precisely what I meant a few minutes ago. I wish that Labour Members would not get so excited. They should settle down and do a bit of listening.
	The fishing industry's problem was summed up in Fishing News a few weeks ago. The Minister asserted:
	"A single European fleet is just not going to happen. The UK will never agree to it".
	That is in the same vein as the Prime Minister's description of the European Union in a speech he made in Birmingham on 23 November. He said:
	"We have a vision for Europe as a union of nations working more closely together, not a federal superstate submerging national identity."
	It appears to me, and to many others, that perhaps neither gentleman has studied existing European Union treaties, especially in relation to future fisheries integration.
	The statement in Fishing News continues:
	"Spain is totally isolated on this approach, which also fuels arguments for EU permits which we would strongly resist."
	The permit system—or call it what you will—is already an obligation under the treaty of Corfu. It is required to be operating before the end of 2002. Spain—this answers a point raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) earlier—can veto any issue when a discriminatory transitional derogation is sought, which includes the six and 12-mile limits. The Minister expressed support for that.
	The situation today is exactly the same as that which was clearly explained here, during debates in 1971 and 1972, by Labour Members—the now Lord Healey, and the late Lords Shore and Jay. The Commission's press release of 4 December confirms its intention to
	"reduce the TAC for associated stocks".
	That, and
	"reducing fishing effort, that is time spent at sea by fishing vessels",
	will be controlled by special fishing permits.
	The Prime Minister said:
	"The tragedy for British politics—for Britain—has been that politicians of both parties have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but on up to the present day, to appreciate the emerging reality of European integration. And in doing so, they have failed Britain's interest".
	There is some truth in that statement—the Government do fail to see the reality of fisheries integration—but, as usual, what the Prime Minister says and what he does are opposites. The experience of fisheries integration over the past 19 years has created the greatest social and environmental disaster that mankind could devise, the price of which our fishermen pay every working day of their lives.

Elliot Morley: I shall not defend the workings of the current common fisheries policy, which certainly need to be changed. Let me put the hon. Lady right on one point, however. I refer to the assertion, well known in the fishing industry, that we will all have to have European fishing permits. The permits required by the treaty of Corfu are already in effect, and apply to western waters management. They have not been used to supersede national permits or control, and they will not be: there is no reason why they should be.
	Another issue that often causes concern is coastal limits. It is not true that there is a veto. Unless anyone challenges them, coastal limits will automatically be "rolled over" after 2002. Even if they are challenged, qualified majority voting will be involved—and I have no doubt that a qualified majority is in favour of retaining coastal limits.

Ann Winterton: I am sure that the fishing industry will be glad of those assurances—assurances about a matter that is yet to be decided. The Minister referred to qualified majority voting; I am pleased that he is confident of obtaining support in the numbers he requires, but I must admit to remaining concerned about the position. I shall wait to see whether he can deliver what he says he can deliver, but I believe that the case that I have presented is absolutely correct.
	The Prime Minister surely cannot believe that wiping out the British fishing industry and marine stocks is in Britain's interests. No wonder the Liberal Democrats' spokesman for environment, food and rural affairs challenged the Government to put the environment at the heart of policy in an article in the September edition of The Parliamentary Monitor. Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrat policy proposes a lot of mini-CFPs. We can only conclude that both the Liberal Democrats and the Prime Minister indirectly support the dumping of dead prime fish back in the sea—which will cause pollution—the breaking of the marine food chain, and the marketing of baby fish in southern Europe.
	The present quota system has one more year to run. The system, which is in itself a derogation from equal access to a common resource, will have run its course on 31 December 2002. Today's debate takes place just before the Minister goes to negotiate the new TACs, and other matters, at the Council of Fisheries Ministers. As he said, the Commission has already announced further devastating cuts to quotas as a basis for discussion—cuts that fall below even what scientists have recommended.
	There is an established pattern to those negotiations, which means that whatever concessions the Minister can wring out on behalf of the UK will be considered to be an improvement on the worst case scenario. Let us not be fooled. The situation is dire and we are witnessing the slow death of our industry by a thousand cuts.
	The Minister has told us in the past that fishermen have to accept the continuing cuts in quota in the name of conservation. How, therefore, can the Commission justify the cutting back of quota for dover sole by 40 per cent., or 320 tonnes, in area 7E of the south-west coast of England, while allowing an increase in plaice quota of 6 per cent., or 330 tonnes, for the same area of sea, in order to conserve fish? It is well known that the species are caught together in the beam trawling fishery, just as cod and coley are caught in single and twin demersal trawls.
	The direct result of those quota decisions will be yet further dumping. That unhappy practice, together with juvenile discards, was highlighted more than a decade ago by the industry and included in the Commission's 1991 report. Since then, little progress has been made because of the rigidity of the system. I hope that the editorial comment in last week's Fishing News is correct and a more balanced view will be taken. The editorial stated:
	"There can be no greater indictment of the European Commission's failure to run the CFP properly than its own report on enforcement of fishery regulation.
	The inadequacy and patent lack of uniformity in the enforcement regimes across the EU have been apparent for many years. The Commission has been aware of these failures for years but they have still not been addressed."

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Lady mentioned a time a decade ago. According to my maths, the Conservatives were in government then. Why did they not do anything about it then?

Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is new and perhaps he does not understand the cause of the problem, which is the rigidity in the system. It is the Commission that runs the policy and it is for the Commission to enforce it. [Interruption.] I have just read him a bit from Fishing News. Perhaps he read it, or perhaps he would like to go to the Library and read it again. If he did, he would see who is to blame.

Frank Doran: The hon. Lady may have forgotten that there was a Conservative Government 10 years ago, but I hope that she has not forgotten that it was the Conservative Government who took us into the CFP in the first place.

Ann Winterton: No, how could I have forgotten that? I am not trying to make cheap party political points—[Interruption.] I am trying to get to the truth of why our fish stocks are as low as they are, why our fishermen are going out of business because it is too difficult for them to continue and what we will do, in this country and elsewhere, to encourage good environmental management and to ensure that the ecosystems in the sea can recover so that the fish stocks can recover. This is an important issue. Hon. Members on both sides might guffaw about it, but it is not they who go out fishing every week: they sit around in a comfortable, warm and safe place.

Frank Doran: rose—

Ann Winterton: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman because I am going to make progress with my speech.

Andrew George: rose—

Ann Winterton: I am not giving way to that hon. Gentleman either. Let him make his own speech and he can give way to me.
	On 1 January 1999, the Minister introduced a system of fixed quota allocations, on the basis that that was what the industry wanted—[Interruption.] Yes, a majority wanted it, although many indicated other views in their responses to the consultation paper. The introduction of that system has denied fishermen the opportunity to improve their businesses. They now have to pay money for the additional quota that they need to remain viable. Many fishermen have no financial means to do this and are being forced to leave the industry due to financial constraints.
	Schemes using public funds for the benefit of some fishermen have been introduced. This time last week the Commission issued a press release:
	"The Commission opens investigations into UK aid schemes involving purchase and leasing of fish quota".
	That is a very serious situation and refers to a purchasing company supported by the Shetland and Orkney islands councils. When that project was formulated on the recommendation of John Goodlad, chief executive of the Shetland Fish Producers Organisation and also secretary of the Shetland Fishermen's Association, who is due to step down from those posts at the end of this month, certain Shetland fishermen suggested that the Commission's authorisation should be sought before proceeding.
	In the fisheries debate on 15 December 1998, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), whom I am delighted to see in her place this afternoon—

Austin Mitchell: As usual.

Ann Winterton: Indeed. The hon. Lady is a keen attender of fisheries debates for the simple reason that she has a strong constituency interest. In the debate in 1998, she quoted from a letter the Minister wrote in the 4 December 1998 edition of Fishing News, which gave support to that kind of scheme. In fact, the Minister visited Shetland and when he appeared before the Agriculture Committee on 22 June 1999, he confirmed that he fully encouraged such schemes. The Liberal Democrats also encouraged that approach.
	In the Aberdeen Press and Journal on 30 November 2001, John Goodlad is quoted as saying:
	"I am perfectly satisfied that the scheme does not breach any Community aid rules whatsoever. All the discussions we have had with the Scottish executive and the Commission confirm this to be the case".
	However, Shetland councillor, Drew Ratter, was quoted as saying:
	"I am absolutely stunned. The European Commission had a very good look at this before and there was an in-depth investigation. Everyone was informed".
	In the same report, Alan Coghill, chief executive of the Orkney Fish Producers Organisation is quoted as saying that he suspects that
	"a jealous Euro MP may be behind the investigation".
	I understand that it was indeed a Member of the European Parliament who initially prompted that investigation. I believe that that MEP is a member of the Labour group. Indeed, I understand that it was Mr. Gordon Adam.

Alistair Carmichael: I am loth to interrupt the hon. Lady but she has now singled out no fewer than four constituents of mine for particular comment, all of whom are well respected in the fishing industry. With every moment of her speech I can feel the Tory vote in Orkney and Shetland ebbing away. Would the Conservative party be prepared to be as fulsome in its support of the Orkney and Shetland islands councils' position on the purchase and leasing of quota on commercial grounds as the Minister has been this afternoon?

Ann Winterton: Of course we would be equally supportive, as long as we know—I am sure that the Minister agrees with this point—that it has not broken any rules or regulations. I will shortly describe the procedure that must be followed, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to intervene later on that point. I am sure that he would not support knowingly breaking the rules, because that is not the way forward.
	The establishment of a similar enterprise, the Duchy Fish Quota Company, which is backed by Cornwall county council, has been seriously affected by the investigation. Advice about setting up the scheme had been obtained from the organisers of the Shetland scheme. In the Western Morning News of 3 December, the chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, Nathan de Rozarieux—a good Cornish name—was quoted as saying that the Commission investigation was a shock and a setback that could cause up to two years of delays.
	Unfortunately, the matter is far more serious and goes much further than the Commission's investigation. Applications for such schemes must be made in advance. When an application is received and approved by the Commission, notification of approval is published in the Official Journal. If that process is not completed, the Commission will open an investigation, as it has with the Orkney and Shetland scheme, that can take up to 18 months to finish.
	Annual reports have to be submitted to the Commission for such approved schemes. Have any annual reports been filed for the Orkney and Shetland scheme? It is puzzling that the scheme should have been operating for some time, and one wonders whether the Commission has turned a blind eye to its existence. If Community rules are found to have been broken in respect of a scheme operated without the Commission's approval, the member state is charged with the responsibility of taking back the money given in state aid, plus interest.
	It will not escape the House that if the Commission finds against a scheme, the amount of money involved is considerable. It will have been paid over several years and will run in advance for the 18 months or so that the investigation may last before it concludes. That is a serious issue for the fishermen concerned. If the Commission finds that the rules have been broken, it will expect the Government to take full responsibility. Indeed, they have a moral duty to do so, as in the past they have publicly supported the scheme.
	Save Britain's Fish and the Fishermen's Association Ltd. have warned for years that the devil was in the detail, and attracted much scorn from all sides in the process. Those who support the common fisheries policy must base their judgments not on wishful thinking, but on fact.
	I wanted to speak at length about the effort restrictions that apply to western waters and the Baltic, and to ask how many kilowatt days the United Kingdom is to lose next year. The Minister knows that we are exceeding the kilowatt days allocation, but how does he believe that vessels will obtain the necessary licences to rectify the under-declared overcapacity in engines by 2004? However, I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, so those matters will have to wait for another debate.
	In fisheries debates, we often hear the cry that too many vessels are chasing too few fish, yet, in the name of conservation, we are told that vessels must be decommissioned. That is strange, given that the quota is left intact to be reused. The Government—except for the Treasury—do not support a tie-up scheme, because that is all about getting rid of British vessels, not conservation.

Bill Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend throw some light on the practice of klondiking? We in land-locked Leominster would be grateful to know more about the process, which allows a vessel to unload its quota or catch on to other vessels and thus to continue to fish 24 hours a day.

Ann Winterton: The fishing industry has all sorts of wheezes to deploy in the system of quota management. My hon. Friend gave one example, and I could give him others. The important matter is how we can restore fish stocks sufficiently to allow a viable and sustainable fishing industry in the future.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend accept that klondiking strips the seas of our fish stocks and so prevents recovery? In respect of reform of the CFP and other matters that will arise in the next year, should not the Government's policy be to prevent that and other practices, which are destroying our fish stocks?

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend is right, and makes his point clearly.
	The primary issue at stake is the development of sustainable policies to guard the marine environment and ecosystems, and thereby increase fish stocks. We know that different stocks are in flux as a result of global warming. The rigidity of the present quota system means that fishermen will catch species that are different from those specified in the 1974 to 1978 reference period. That problem will be exacerbated by the Minister fixing the quota for each vessel. As a result, catches will either be landed as black fish, or dumped.
	The Minister has indicated his dislike of industrial fishing on numerous occasions. We share that dislike. I accept that he secured a restriction for the birds around Wee Bankie, but the three vessels allowed in for scientific purposes seem to have had a field day with sand eels and juvenile haddock. It is nothing short of a disgrace that the sand eel total allowable catch has been reduced by only 20 per cent., to 816,000 tonnes. I hope that he makes sure that that TAC is no more than 200,000 tonnes for the next year. The present proposals are an insult to the demersal fishermen, and we must remember that industrial trawlers are not even catching their quota. The potential for even more damage to fish stocks is therefore inherent in the system.
	Another saying often heard is that fish know no boundaries. How right that is, as fish clear off to better waters when there is no food. How can fish stocks be expected to increase when the food chain is being destroyed? In the Barents sea, cod turned to cannibalism and took longer to grow, and the same is happening now with North sea haddock.
	Industrial fishermen were even allowed into the areas closed for spawning cod earlier this year. To catch sand eels, they used nets through which it would be difficult to push a knitting needle. Moreover, the closed areas for cod were designated using British vessel log books and past records, but they did not match the spawning grounds and were applied only after half the cod had already spawned.
	Where were the demersal vessels to go? They had no alternative other than to go to the very areas that the fishermen wanted to avoid—those with juvenile haddock stocks that needed to be conserved for the 2002 catch.
	Parliament has allowed this system of integration in order to fulfil treaty obligations. It has resulted in fishermen being criminalised, and it has been the reason for decreasing fish stocks. It is no use our blaming European fishermen for making the most of every opportunity that is handed to them on a plate.
	As we enter the final year of the integration process, I hope that the Minister will not continue to believe that a derogation permanently overrides a treaty. I trust that he fully understands the aces that nations such as Spain hold. The Government and the Liberal Democrat party would like the 12-mile derogation to be made permanent, but I challenge the Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for St. Ives to say how such permanency might be secured. Given that they want to make the 12-mile limit permanent, the Minister should also explain what happened to the 12 to 200 mile median-line limit established by the then Labour Government with the Fishery Limits Act 1976.
	The problem for European marine stocks is political, stemming from the move for political integration to establish the superstate. The Prime Minister asserts that that will not happen, but page 34 of volume 1 of the Commission Green Paper refers to
	"ensuring that the governance remains compatible with the legal and institutional framework of the Treaty".
	It is there in black and white.
	Let me make very clear the difference between the political parties' policies. The Scottish nationalists cannot wait to sign up to the acquis communautaire, handing what they deem a Scottish living marine resource to the European Union, to be shared equally with all the present and future member states, including Austria and Luxembourg, which are landlocked countries.

Alex Salmond: I do not believe that Austria poses a mortal threat to the Scottish fishing industry at present. Nor has the Scottish National party ever supported the acquis communautaire. We are strong supporters of relative stability, which I hope is being secured.
	Can the hon. Lady confirm that it was a Conservative Government who, only six years ago, unnecessarily traded accelerated Spanish access to western waters in return for support from Spain on qualified majority voting on a matter that had nothing to do with fishing?

Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman says that Austria is not a threat, but my point is that countries such as Austria and Luxembourg, which have no sea, will be able to buy in an equal part of the fishing in the European pond.

Alex Salmond: Scotland is not represented equally or often at all.

Ann Winterton: I will ignore that remark.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the previous Conservative Government. Has anything changed in the meantime? It is still all about horse trading, which is what the problem will be at the end of 2002.

Malcolm Savidge: Seahorses.

Ann Winterton: Indeed.
	I have known the Minister for a number of years because we both served on the Agriculture Select Committee. I often think that he must feel uncomfortable in his present position because he is a tremendous environmentalist. I hope that he will hold his views to the fore and come round to a situation in which we can save the marine environment. My goodness, at the rate it is going, there will not be one left to save very shortly.
	The Liberal Democrats fully support the acquis communautaire but think that they can break the common fisheries policy down into smaller chunks. That, in theory, could be achieved now and need not wait until 2003. Ensuring that competency is given to those regions is a different matter. The Government go along with the concept of reform, which is disingenuous. How can reform be achieved to benefit British fishermen when, by definition, it means disadvantaging other countries? Reform is a smokescreen for doing little but tinker at the edges.

Andrew George: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Frank Doran: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Winterton: I am going to make progress. I have been generous in giving way.
	The Conservative party believes in returning fisheries policy to national control to enable us to get to grips quickly with a very fluid conservation situation. We can achieve genuine co-operation among member states, for everyone's benefit, with reciprocal arrangements. That is the only way forward for the survival of not only the British fishing industry but of all the fishing fleets of other member states. Conservative policy has at its very heart the conservation and sustainability of fish stocks.
	The present policy is a travesty under the guise of conservation and a prime example of the abuse of a valuable national resource. Such a sacrifice must not be allowed to continue. We have a duty to ensure that our national interest is protected with the restoration of competence to the place where it traditionally and rightfully belongs.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. She is attempting to explain Conservative policy, after her rather vain attempt to rubbish the policies of others. Could she dwell a little longer on Tory policy as explained in the Conservative manifesto? It says that the Conservatives will seek national or local control over our waters, to be established through zonal management, coastal management or in some other way. I am sure that that is clear to everybody. Will she elaborate on how that is to be achieved?

Ann Winterton: I always believe that one good quote deserves another. How does the Liberal Democrat party propose to achieve its policy? I remember the hon. Gentleman speaking in a fishing policy debate on 23 July 1997. I wonder whether he has a selective memory. He said:
	"By regional, I mean that we need to consider the relative merits of natural regions such as the North, Celtic and Baltic seas, where boundaries coincide with the general range of a particular stock and coastal state management as favoured by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, operating up to the median line. The crucial point is that such semi-autonomous regions should be given the power and flexibility to determine the management systems best suited to their needs."—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c.893.]
	When he speaks, perhaps he will explain how he and his party will acquire the power to carry out his policy.

Bob Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ann Winterton: No, I intend to continue with my speech.
	I want to look elsewhere in the world for a moment. Global warming moved the cod from Canadian waters, not overfishing—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for St. Ives listens, he might learn something. Because of the bloom of shrimp, scallop and crab, the landings there today are far greater than they ever were with the cod. The Canadians developed from a Norwegian idea the separator grid, which gave them a virtually clean fishery. The lessons to be learned from their experiences are that we have to move quickly with gear development for the changing global circumstances and not build vessels or processing plants that depend on one species alone.
	The world's great success story is Namibia. Three years after gaining independence, the hake recovery was hailed as simply miraculous. That is an example of what national control can achieve.
	I regret that the fisheries debate this year could not have been held after the Commission's report. I understand from the Minister that the basic fisheries conservation regulation is due to be introduced in January next year. It will be interesting to see, under article 43 of the treaty, whether the Commission recommends any further transitional derogations in the run-up to 1 January 2003, which is only a year away. I rather suspect that it will, and the ensuing horse trading—seahorse trading—will leave plenty of blood on the carpet.
	The price of agreeing to renew the six and 12-mile limit derogation for a further period may be extremely high. It might even include Spain securing the right of a European Union-wide trading system for quota—with, of course, Gibraltar thrown in for good measure—leaving the Spanish industry in a predatory pole position to take over, for example, a further weakened Scottish fleet. After all, Spain always manages to gain financial advantages from European Union funds. It recently benefited from a further award of £122 million, so it has plenty of money with which to achieve its long-term aims.
	I trust that a further debate will be secured to consider the implications of this important matter so that the House does not fail Britain's interests. We wish the Minister well in his negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom in the coming weeks.

Austin Mitchell: As someone who has attended and spoken in even more fishery debates than the 191 claimed by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), and given my even more frequent attempts to become the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to win his approval, I note that this annual fish fest occurs in a more difficult and uncertain atmosphere than ever before. Usually, the Minister attends the debate and then goes off to negotiate an agreement, but at present there are so many uncertainties that the situation has become extremely complicated.
	Much attention has been devoted to the review of the common fisheries policy that will take place next year. That review opens up huge issues such as zonal management, which of course we all support, and relative stability. With regard to that, I draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to the problems of Spanish and Portuguese access. They will eventually have access to the North sea for non-quota stocks, but as there are bound to be by-catches, the fishing organisations are worried that the Spanish and Portuguese will establish a track record in quota stocks as by-catches to the quota stocks that they catch, thus giving them a foothold in that area. There are implications for the new entrants: for example, the Poles will eventually have access on the same basis as Spain and Portugal. We should consider that question.
	There is also uncertainty because so many aspects have not yet been settled, largely due to the breakdown of the talks with Norway on blue whiting—a necessary form of currency for exchange with Norway. It is pointless to catch blue whiting merely for industrial purposes and to grind it into fishmeal. The fish is edible and can be used as a currency swop for cod—to obtain increased cod quota from Norway—which is vital for the big Humberside industry that we hope will be maintained. It is a shame that the talks have broken down and I hope that my hon. Friend can give us some reassurance about that. Will the 2.9 per cent. EC share of north-east Arctic cod—small though it is—be maintained? That, too, is crucial to the Humberside industry.
	A further uncertainty is the conservation problem. We do not know what is happening. As yet, there has been no study of the effects of the cod and hake preservation plans. We are making decisions about TACs and quotas before we know about the reduction in the scale of the industry. Scotland generously allocated about £25 million for decommissioning while the English Government scraped together a pathetic £6 million for the English industry after emptying every piggy bank in DEFRA—and after foot and mouth, DEFRA does not have many piggy banks left. What effect will that have on the conservation problem?
	What effect will the reduction in the fleet have on the multi-annual guidance programme? The industry is losing faith in that programme and it needs to be revised.
	In addition, the Commission chucked a bombshell into all that uncertainty on 4 December. The industry had been looking forward to a minor increase in catches—certainly in the North sea—based on scientific advice. Although it was a small increase, it was helpful, but the Commission announced, in effect, that it was going to cut back on what had been recommended. I can see no reason for that, unless the Commission is anxious to safeguard its position by saying, "We are more virtuous. We are purer than pure, and if anything goes wrong we are not to blame because we recommended cutting back on what the scientists proposed." Why has that happened?
	My hon. Friend said that he will oppose that cut. The whole industry will be grateful for that. We cannot have these unilateral excursions, whereby the Commission decides unilaterally to abandon scientific advice. We have taken great trouble to establish a proper working relationship between fishermen and the scientists. That is developing especially well in Scotland—the relationship is healthier there than in the rest of the country. Having gone to the trouble of developing that relationship, it is pointless for the Commission to torpedo the scientific recommendations. Some scientists say that that decision is nonsense. They will not say so publicly, unfortunately, but it is nonsense.
	The Commission is moving to an ominous new basis for drawing up its management policy for fisheries. The basis for its judgments is now to be the optimum biological solution. That sounds good and indeed it is good—that is what we all want—but fishing is also an economic activity. We must emphasise that: it is an economic activity on which communities depend and which produces a living for fishermen all over the country. If it is to be viewed solely in terms of optimum biological solutions, it will be only one factor in a biological matrix. However, it must also be considered from the economic point of view. That is crucial. Unless the economic importance of fishing is recognised in the conservation measures, they will be circumvented.
	A bankrupt or failing industry will not obey the rules—it will try to cheat. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations put that more politely in its submission to its members by noting that there would be "circumvented measures". That means that people will cheat. There will be black landings and illegal practices. Stocks will be damaged. Fishermen will be driven to those practices by their financial situation. We must acknowledge the importance of economic factors in keeping the industry going.
	Conservation must take account of the economics of fishing. Any measures that the Government or the Commission adopt must be properly financed. For example, technical measures will be introduced next year as part of the cod and hake preservation plans. There will be an increase in mesh sizes. There will be regulations on the thickness of twine—we are getting down to details like that. There will be regulations on catch composition. All that will not only be difficult to enforce, it will inevitably mean a loss of marketable fish. If fishermen have to use a larger mesh size—as they should, because it is good practice—their catches will go down. The fish will be bigger and more marketable, but less will be caught.
	The Scottish industry tells us that trials in Scotland have shown that the economic loss through those measures will be twice as much as the Commission has suggested. There must be financial support from the Government or from the Commission. The industry does not care where the money comes from as long as it comes. The industry needs that incentive to help it to implement and comply with the measures and to ensure effective enforcement.
	If the industry does not receive help, it will be hit by the same double whammy that has been described over the years in all those 191 fishing debates. Measures are constantly imposed on the industry from Europe: cuts in quota; regulation of days at sea; attempts at reduction and various conservation measures. No doubt they are all important. However, it does not receive the financial help from the Government—it certainly did not under the Conservatives—that comparable European industries receive.
	My hon. Friend referred to the ending of the Moroccan agreement. The Spanish industry will be generously compensated for that and we shall pay towards that compensation. If there was a similar rundown in the British industry, British fishermen would receive no compensation because the British Government will not pay out the money. Because of the problems of the Luxembourg agreement and the threat to the rebate—

Elliot Morley: rose—

Austin Mitchell: I hope that my hon. Friend will not complicate the matter—I do not understand the Luxembourg agreement.

Elliot Morley: The loss of the Moroccan fisheries agreement is very comparable to the United Kingdom's loss of the Iceland fishery, in which case it is a complete fishery gone—there is nowhere for the boats to go. In those circumstances, there was a lot of Government compensation for the distant-water fleets. The compensation for the crews was not very fair, but my hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) played a very important role in putting right that wrong under this Government.

Austin Mitchell: That is certainly true, and the fishermen and the industry are grateful that that happened; it was right that it should happen. However, the point that I am making is that Spain is getting compensation from Europe now because the fishing has stopped now, and that compensation is more generous than that paid to the British industry. It is certainly more generous than that paid to the British fishermen—they got nothing when that happened in 1976. We did not get an allowance for the loss of those waters in subsequent quotas and catches.
	There is a need to support and help the industry. When the industry is forced to obey European measures, it should not be hit by a refusal to pay European compensation or British Government money. The Treasury shows no sign of understanding the economic importance or the relevance of fishing.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority and passion and I always enjoy listening to him. Of course, the Opposition agree that we must adequately compensate our fishermen, but he is avoiding the root cause of the problem. Surely he, above all people, will accept that the cause of the problem over the past 20 years has been the common fisheries policy, which has failed. It has failed our fishing communities and the fishermen themselves, and it has failed to conserve fish stocks. Our industry has been decimated by Europe. Is it not about time that he came clean for his constituents and agreed that the best way forward now is not to tinker with that policy, as the Labour Government will do—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could come to the point.

Bob Spink: Instead, the Government should follow a Conservative policy by establishing area sector controls and national controls for this country so that we can conserve our stocks.

Austin Mitchell: Flattery will get the hon. Gentleman a long way, but it will not get me to support Conservative party policy. I have to point out to him that the Conservative Government did nothing about this issue. In 1972, the Conservative Government sold the pass on the common fisheries policy, as the memoir written by the appropriately named Sir Con O'Neill showed at the time. He was asked to abdicate the fight over the common fisheries policy so that he could move towards getting the greater good, which was entry, and nothing has been done since.
	In passing, I have to agree that life would be much easier if we could control our own destinies—I would like that, too—because we controlled our own waters. That is why other industries have been more successful than ours, and why it has faced those difficulties. The hon. Gentleman's flattery has got me to admit that much any way, but the point that I am making is more simple than that. When those measures bite and are successful, catches will begin to increase, the preservation plans will work and we shall have more cod and hake, but if we are to encourage the industry to survive, we have to help it financially through the transition.
	I am delighted that the NFFO and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have co-operated with the World Wide Fund for Nature in its cost-benefit study on the benefits of investing in fishing. I emphasise the word "investment", because my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will not support vessels to do nothing or tie-up schemes, but this is about investment in the industry's future. That study shows—this is a preliminary indication only—that investment of £590 million over 10 years will produce a return 14 times that sum in the increase in the British industry's catches.
	The value of those catches will increase to £7.638 billion as a consequence of that investment. That really is investment, and we should make an intelligent case for it. Such a case will not necessarily appeal to the Treasury—muscle is more important there—but the industry is producing an intelligent case for that investment, and I hope that my hon. Friend and the Treasury will consider it seriously.
	Usually, in fisheries debates, I urge my hon. Friend to take a strong stand. I know that he will; he has committed himself to doing so and the industry trusts him. It is fed up with Europe, true, but it trusts him because it knows that he understands the industry and that he will fight the cuts, but he has to do other things as well. He is as concerned about industrial fishing as I am and he will oppose it. Industrial fishing is a disaster when we are trying to build up stocks because of the by-catches.
	An item in the Fishing News, about which I wrote to my hon. Friend in October, states that one Danish industrial vessel was tied up for catching too much immature haddock in its by-catches. The Grimsby Fish Producers Organisation worked out that that 114-tonne industrial catch of juvenile fish, which was landed illegally in Denmark, would have amounted to 912 tonnes of mature fish if they had been allowed to grow. That is a third more than the entire Grimsby haddock quota of 600 tonnes.
	Those are the figures, and they show what was ruined and the damage done to the stocks by industrial fishing. If that estimate is increased to cover 40 vessels, to make allowance for the scale of other catches, the fish that did not grow to maturity would have equalled the United Kingdom's entire 40,000-tonne haddock quota. That is terrible and frightening, and it is a direct consequence of industrial fishing, so I hope that we can ban such fishing because we cannot have effective conservation without stopping industrial fishing.
	I also hope that my hon. Friend will invoke The Hague preference to protect our catches. The very small increase in the total allowable catch for North sea cod will leave the share of United Kingdom cod below the trigger point, so we can invoke The Hague preference and should do so for those areas that are dependent on fishing. Unfortunately, they are north of Grimsby, but I am making an altruistic gesture.
	My hon. Friend knows the importance of research, but we should attach enormous importance to more research. Frankly, we do not know what is going on. Other hon. Members have mentioned the warming of the waters, but the Grimsby FPO says that in the 1980s the English fishing fleet was reduced by 50 per cent. It was reduced by another 75 per cent. in the 1990s, yet we still have a conservation crisis, so something more than the fishing effort is causing the problem.
	The scientists inform us that the fish in the North sea stocks under survey—those that they are researching—are not now reaching the size and weight appropriate to their age. Why is that? The explanation that is most often put forward involves climatic change and global warming. The food source for the cod larvae—the phytoplankton—has decreased because the waters are warming. The fact that the waters are warming is causing the cod to migrate north, so there are more cod further north.
	We are finding unusual species even in the North sea. There are increases in red mullet, bass and strangers. A swordfish was washed up on the Lincolnshire coast—the costa del caravan. I read in Fishing News this week that a barracuda has been caught off Cornwall—it probably has not yet joined the Liberal Democrats there—and that suggests that the waters are warming.
	We need to examine the problem so that we understand what is happening, how much can be done through changes to fishing practice and how much is due to circumstances beyond our control. We cannot have a proper policy unless we understand the problem.
	Although my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), with whom I usually work closely, will object, I must mention the fact that the Grimsby FPO says that there is a seal population explosion and that something must be done about that. I know that she is an animal lover but, if fish catches are down and quotas are to be reduced, why should the seal population not be culled to its previous level? A growing seal population is targeting a smaller number of fish.

Shona McIsaac: rose—

Austin Mitchell: I knew this would happen, so I give way.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way, but I was probably more incensed by the reference to the costa del caravan.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the seal population explosion, but what scientific evidence does he have for his claim? What evidence from scientific research shows the impact on fishing stocks?

Austin Mitchell: I must admit that the evidence is a priori and largely in my head, but it is reinforced by complaints made by fishermen. Seals are a problem and I am asking for more research to be carried out. It stands to reason that an increasing seal population must have an effect on the number of fish.
	Other problems need to be considered in the round. For example, aggregates dredging must damage fishing. I noticed that the Dutch have banned aggregates dredging entirely and that they import their aggregates from us. We dredge them up in the North sea with consequent damage to the fishing grounds.
	I have also written to my hon. Friend the Minister about power stations and industrial complexes. Fish are killed in the intake pipes of the power stations on Humberside. That is a problem and we need to understand all aspects of it, so that we can devise an overall policy that supports fish stocks.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend has mentioned the power stations on Humberside. As he is well aware, they are mainly located in my constituency. They take fresh water from the River Humber, which is obviously not as saline as the water out at sea. Therefore, different species are involved, so he cannot blame the power stations in my constituency for reductions in cod stocks.

Austin Mitchell: Loth as I am to disagree with my hon. Friend on any occasion, and closely as we always co-operate, edible fish, including haddock, are found dead in the intakes to the power stations. The problem goes wider than riverine fish, and we need to have a policy on the issue. If we are to build more power stations and if it is possible to prevent fish stocks from being destroyed, we should surely act because we have a conservation crisis on our hands.
	We cannot regulate in the dark, but we are being asked to accept arguments that we do not know can be supported and that are based on fairly shaky evidence. There is a genuine dispute not only between the fishermen and the scientists, but between the Commission and the scientists. My argument is for more light to be shed on the problem. Because there are so many generators in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes, I am sure that she will not argue with that. There is a measure of common ground between us on that at least. Ocean research cannot be left to the BBC. Such work is an important part of the role of DEFRA.
	I am sorry that I have gone on for so long, but the discussion is based on an uncertainty that is bad for fishing. The industry has been badly battered over the past few years, and it is in a desperate financial state. Many of the vessels fishing are not viable in that they do not produce a return or support the fishermen who operate them. Some improvement will result from the decommissioning that will take out vessels in Scotland and England, but I fear that that will not be enough to return the industry to viability. We expected a slightly better deal for the North sea and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) has pointed out, we have a damaging status quo in the Irish sea.
	I wish my hon. Friend the Minister all power, because he carries a major burden in trying to bring certainty to an industry when the Commission pulls one way and the scientific evidence is not available. The industry needs a national plan and the confidence that the Government will sustain it through the difficulties that it faces. It wants to be assured that the Government will resist the mercurial ups and downs of the Commission and support it by investment so that it will be seen through the problems that will undoubtedly arise. If British vessels go bust, fold up or leave the industry, we must not allow licences to be bought out by better financed industries that are supported by their Governments in a way that ours is not.

Andrew George: I congratulate the Minister on securing this debate.
	I associate myself with the sympathies that the Minister extended to the families of the nine fishermen who have died in the industry this year. As he knows, I have pursued this issue inside and outside the Chamber, because it is unacceptable that the fishing industry appears to accept far higher fatality levels than any other industry. Further measures are certainly needed. The training and training grants that he mentioned are very welcome.
	The debate focuses on the Green Paper on the reform of the common fisheries policy in a climate in which, as the Minister knows only too well, difficult negotiations are due to take place on 17 and 18 December. Therefore, it is inevitable that the debate will concentrate on how we can carve out a long-term future for the industry through the renegotiation of the CFP while dealing with the short-term issues relating to the stock numbers and species that the Minister highlighted in his speech.
	Despite the doom-and-gloom merchants, who are mainly on the Conservative Benches—all one of them at present—it is encouraging that we now have the best opportunity in a generation for sensible reform of the CFP. All sensible political parties are concerned about the future of the CFP, and we now have an opportunity to renegotiate it.
	We welcome many elements of the Commission's Green Paper. The fact that it recognises that the CFP
	"has not delivered sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources"
	acknowledges the policy's fundamental failure. Since 1986, the Liberal Democrats have published our policy on the matter and we were the first political party to argue for devolved powers within the CFP through a reformed mechanism. The Green Paper also clearly recommends devolving serious powers to regional coastal fisheries committees. We must encourage that, and I was pleased to hear the Minister again welcome it. We must push for that in the reform of the common fisheries policy.
	We welcome the recognition of the need to introduce technical measures to achieve more selective catches. The Minister welcomed multi-annual quotas, for which, as he knows, I have pushed for some time. We need to break out of the annual eleventh-hour brinkmanship that takes place when we carve up quota. The ability to plan is important. The continuation of the six and 12-mile zones and the retention of relative stability, which are recognised in the Green Paper, should be welcomed. I hope that with the Minister's support we have reason to be optimistic that we will achieve that in negotiations by the end of next year.
	Having said that, we need a clearer statement of effective and stronger devolution. That needs to be spelled out in policy so that we know how it will be achieved. If we give fishermen in the regions power, we also give them responsibility. As it would be down to them if they got things wrong, it is important that they are genuine stakeholders in the regional management committees. It is essential that they work with representatives of Departments from all nation states that have an interest in that area and with fisheries scientists so that it is possible to focus on a natural fishing region and to plan for its future with clarity.
	I welcome the Green Paper. It is important that we move away from the doom-and-gloom view expressed mainly by Conservative Members. The industry needs a long-term policy. History shows that fishermen and politicians do not always go together well, and it seems inevitable that there is a process of short-term reactive and piecemeal policy making for the fishing industry. That is why the Agriculture Select Committee, of which I was a member, was right to recommend in July 1999 that the Government establish a clear long-term strategy for the United Kingdom's fishing industry. That recommendation received an enthusiastic response from the Minister and the Government two and a half years ago and was welcomed in a written answer on 4 December 2001, just two days ago. However, little progress has been made.
	I hope that the Minister will ensure not only that we get strong and effective renegotiation of the CFP, but that we have a clear UK strategy on where the industry is going and how it will get there. There is a general consensus in all parties on the need to have a sustainable industry, and it is encouraging that environmental bodies and fishing industry representatives are coming together to achieve a common accord, which was not the case some years ago.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who has left the Chamber, referred to a recent Commission report that followed requests to all member states to provide information on the success or otherwise of their enforcement measures and on what infringements were committed and what fines imposed. She was right: the report does not make good reading. Of the 15 member states, only Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria met the March deadline to submit information. The Dutch and the Spanish supplied sections that were illegible; there were serious omissions in the reports of several states, including the Italians and the Spanish; and the French refused to send a report.
	The Conservatives criticise the fact that the system is failing, but go no further. We differ from them in that they do not propose a constructive solution. We have argued for some time, as the Minister knows, that there is a choice. Either we can have central European policing, which we oppose, or we devolve the matter and give nation states greater powers to make bilateral arrangements with other fishing nations so that we can carry out spot checks at any time of another nation's inspectorate and its enforcement regime. Rather than creating another centralist policy, with more centralised bureaucracy, we have a great opportunity to create common accord between nations if we are confident that the enforcement measures are transparent to everyone.

Anthony Steen: I agree entirely about the need to avoid more centralised bureaucracy, because we would end up with another layer in the Commission that would be involved in enforcement in all member states. However, we need cross-border enforcement: for example, British fishing inspectors going to Spain and vice versa. We have been talking about that for years, but nothing ever happens.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he was listening, he would have heard me recommend bilateral agreements between nations such as the UK and Spain. I apologise if I did not use terminology that he could understand. We would like bilateral arrangements between the UK and other nations implemented. I understand from discussions with the Minister that arrangements are in place for reciprocal visits by enforcement officers, especially with the Spanish. That is welcome. We need to hear more about that. The visits should be unannounced so that spot checks can be made, and that will reinforce the confidence that people have in the inspection systems of other nations.
	The end of year negotiations on TACs and quotas are based on science. The Minister was right to say that if the science is clear and robust, it is important that all decisions, including difficult ones, are stuck to so that we do not jeopardise the health of fish stocks. I associate myself with those remarks. However, as he said, the science is at best flimsy, and in some cases non-existent, on a number of stocks. Fishermen would clearly want to recommend responsible increases in quota. If there is disagreement between fishermen and scientists, there must be a method by which the veracity of their evidence can be tested, which is not the case at the moment. Although scientists report to fishermen and there is some discussion—I accept that the relationship between them has improved in some ways—there is still disagreement, which results in a dialogue of the deaf. Fishermen who should be involved in the process end up as bystanders, having to make appeals to MPs in order to be heard, and that is a matter for concern. We need structurally to reform the process; for example, by appointing fishing industry representatives to the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management and other bodies. The industry should be formally represented in the process of collating evidence and testing its veracity. It is essential that it is allowed to use its own evidence in negotiations.
	A great deal has been said about this year's quota allocations. The Minister knows that he will have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House if he robustly defends the science and pursues his arguments on nephrops, on the North sea cod quota and on matters where he believes that the European Commission recommendations do not reflect scientists' advice. He has our support for the agenda that he set out today.
	I turn now to hake, which I mentioned in an intervention. The experience of fishermen in western waters does not match the scientific evidence. It is important that a proper recovery programme is introduced, but we must listen closely to the industry. I know that the UK industry will welcome the increased mesh sizes in area 8, in the bay of Biscay, because of deep and proper concern about the catching of juvenile fish, but that does not go far enough. Catching juvenile fish is unacceptable, and a minimum mesh size of 100 mm is not good enough. It will not protect the species, and a great deal more needs to be done. The UK industry in area 7 accepts and welcomes an increased landing size of 40 cm, and that should apply to area 8 as well.
	On cod, also in area 7, once again the experience of the industry over the past year does not match the scientific advice. There is concern that the shape of monkfish, or angler fish, means that it is inevitable that large numbers will be caught as a by-catch and will need to be discarded dead, which is clearly an absurd waste. I recommend that the Minister reconsiders that issue.
	I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Congleton, who has still not returned to her place, about the industrial fishing quota on sand eels. The UK must take a robust attitude to industrial fishing, which is the scourge of the industry as a whole and needs to be kept properly in check. I wish he well in his negotiations on 17 and 18 December.
	Earlier this year, the Minister introduced welcome consultation on shellfish licensing, which has not yet been mentioned. I want to put it on record that, in a written answer to me last week, he indicated his intention to introduce measures on shellfish licensing by the end of the year. I know that almost the entire industry, and particularly the inshore sector, will welcome that. If he introduces those measures as soon as possible, he will find that he has a very supportive audience.
	The Minister knows that mackerel hand liners, particularly in Cornwall and the south-west, were concerned when, only a couple of months ago, 300 tonnes of their quota were removed without any apparent negotiation. At that time, the industry was particularly buoyant, and there had been significant increases in the catch. I understand that the Minister has had further negotiations on that point.

Elliot Morley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a great deal of sympathy with the mackerel hand line industry, which is a very select and sustainable fishery. That is reflected in the generous guaranteed underpinning of the industry's catch. It is true that some of the mackerel was included in international swaps, which we have to do to ensure that we have sustainable fisheries all around the country. However, as the uptake has been higher than expected, I assure him that we will ensure that that amount of mackerel is reinstated up to the maximum amount of guaranteed underpinning.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that welcome reassurance. I hope that in meetings to discuss the future of the mackerel box, he does not allow anyone to persuade him to consider relaxing the rules on that. There is no point in opening up trawler activity in the mackerel box. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
	As the Minister knows, there has been a great deal of talk in this debate and others about the fact that the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the industry, in the shape of the NFFO and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, are keen to safeguard, through an investment programme, the long-term viability both of the industry and of fish stocks. I know that the Minister is sceptical about the figures provided by the WWF and the industry, which show about £500 million of investment generating over £7 billion of return in 10 years. I hope that he will carefully consider that programme and other forms of transitional aid to support the industry in tackling a difficult issue.
	The hon. Member for Congleton went into some detail about the difficulties of quota companies. In an intervention, I spoke of the importance of ensuring that the European investigation into this matter is concluded as quickly as possible. She named a Labour MEP as the source of the subject's referral to the European Commission. I hope that the Conservatives have checked whether their representatives, whether in Europe or in local councils, raised the possibility of referral.
	The Conservatives have made great play of criticising others but they have not been prepared to defend their record or explain their policy. I gave the hon. Lady an opportunity to do that. I know that many hon. Members are still unclear about what the Conservatives stand for. Do they want to pull out of the common fisheries policy and repatriate fishing with a return to national control? That is unclear, and all their statements simply add to that lack of clarity. However, we know what their record is, and if they could not achieve their aims during 18 years in government, we should take their claims in opposition with a significant pinch of salt.
	I encourage the Minister to argue strongly with his counterparts in Europe for a satisfactory outcome according to the agenda that he has presented to the House today. In the coming months, he should also consider long-term measures to secure the future of the British fishing industry.

Alan Campbell: I shall keep my contribution fairly short, as I know that other hon. Members on both sides want to get into the debate. I shall focus on the main issue that concerns fishermen in my constituency.
	I welcome the announcement by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary this afternoon of payment for safety training courses. The matter was raised in the debate last year and I am pleased that it has been dealt with. I am interested in his comments about the knock-on effects of cuts in quota in some species and some areas, and the disregard for the scientific advice which suggested otherwise.
	The immediate concern of fishermen in North Shields is the proposed cuts in nephrops and the proposals that might follow cuts in North sea cod. Last year's debate was dominated by the imminent closure of the cod areas. There was a clear warning from both sides of the House that that would inevitably lead to pressure on other fisheries. In particular, prawns along the North sea coast were mentioned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) had already been informed of the intention of some of his fishermen to make that transition. I do not say that to provoke civil war between Yorkshire fishermen and Northumberland fishermen; we are all in the same boat—if the House will excuse the pun. Dennis Clark, one of my fishermen, said at the time that in his view, we were trying to solve one problem but were in danger of creating another. That has been borne out by events.
	North Shields, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, is one of the top prawn ports, if not the top prawn port. There has been a great deal of activity this year. It has been quite a good year for fishermen in North Shields in that respect. Many Scottish boats are currently in port, but there is a question about whether the activity is sustainable. Prawn stocks appear to be relatively good. I was given anecdotal evidence to that effect by fishermen, but it seems to be the position taken by UK scientists as well. There was even speculation that there was room for an increase in quotas.
	Hon. Members will understand the surprise and dismay among North Shields fishermen when there was talk of a cut in the nephrops quota in some areas, especially when that seemed to be against official advice. Such cuts are unexpected and unacceptable. I am heartened by the statement from my hon. Friend this afternoon about the strong line that he intends to take in the negotiations. I strongly support him in that.
	It was inevitable that diversification from cod fisheries would put pressure on other fisheries. There is concern about how far that will go. Since the last debate, the worst scenario has been painted by the WWF report entitled "Now or Never", which suggests the possibility of not just a temporary problem for cod stocks in the North sea, but a permanent problem. I am not as blasé as the Conservative spokesman about the Canadian example. The wipe-out of cod stock should not be seen as an opportunity. If the situation in the North sea mirrored what happened in Canada—heaven forbid—why should we live through it, when we can read the book?
	I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the cost of action and of inaction. Whether or not we act, there will be a bill left at the end. We must address the issue of over-capacity not just in the UK fleet, but across Europe. It is a depressing prospect if only the UK and Denmark accept the need for a reduction in fleet size and in capacity. In the long term, we run the risk of running up financial and environmental costs.
	These debates must be more than an annual plea for more money for the fishing industry, although we inevitably get round to the question of money. I welcome the £6 million for decommissioning this year and the £5.5 million for the fisheries regeneration initiative, but if there is a longer-term and potentially a bigger problem than the one that we face now, that figure falls short of the investment needed. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in any way. Fishermen have a great deal of confidence in the way that he speaks up for the industry. If the blame lies anywhere, I suppose that it lies with the Treasury. I hope that the comments from all parts of the House lend weight to my hon. Friend's arguments when he enters into discussions with the Treasury about the amount of money available.
	Successive Governments have ducked the question of investment for the longer term and of how much is enough for decommissioning. Although that is only one tool, it is a necessary and important tool, but money also needs to go into fishing areas for alternative employment. The danger for the Treasury is that if we do not face up to the cost now, that will add to the cost in the future. Governments have not been good at recognising that.
	Decommissioning has a knock-on effect on the facilities and infrastructure of our fishing ports. I welcome the fisheries regeneration initiative, but it is not enough, particularly if the money came, as we understand it did, from the regional development agencies' existing budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby spoke about the NFFO and WWF study on the costs and benefits of fishing, but we need a proper assessment of the economic costs and benefits of fishing and of fishing communities in a regional context in the economic strategy of the RDAs, which have a key role to play. In saying that, I may be straying beyond the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and into that of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and also, perhaps, into the realm of longer-term issues.
	The immediate concern of North sea fishermen is what will happen to the quota and the pressure that they feel is being brought to bear. My hon. Friend the Minister has a difficult task and we wish him well.

Anthony Steen: I have spoken in most fisheries debates in the past 18 years. Such debates are a little like saying bon voyage to the Minister—waving him goodbye on the steps of the docks as he sails out to Brussels and wishing him well in his travels. The Minister is part of the fabric of the fishing industry—in fact, I think that he is the fishing industry. He has been the best fishing Minister, if not the only fishing Minister, that the Labour Government have found. Perhaps they cannot find another one.
	It does not matter how long the debate runs, although I am grateful to all hon. Members for pushing for a full day's debate. Fishing policy has virtually nothing to do with the House of Commons. The whole thing is a charade. Everybody knows that fishing is to do with the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, and is subject to qualified majority voting. The Minister will no doubt remember that a few years ago, we had the debate in January, after he had come back from Brussels. That did not seem to make much difference.
	The Commons has become a sort of focus group for the Minister before he goes off to the Fisheries Council, from where he returns every year with similar results—cuts in quotas and other bad news for the fishermen, but he is lifted shoulder high by fishermen who, I think, are brought in by his party. Shoulder high he goes along the docks, saying what a wonderful job he has done for the fishing industry. He tells us that the cuts would have been far worse if he had not argued so vigorously, and we all say that it did not matter anyway.
	We enjoy the annual pantomime just before Christmas. I am not sure how the Minister is cast; I do not know whether he is the sugar plum fairy or plays another role. However, that rerun has been going on for 10 years or longer; it was going on when we were in office, and has continued now that we have swapped sides. It is like going to the cinema and watching the same film over and over again. The Minister makes his points and hon. Members on both sides of the House make theirs. As a result, we all say the same as we said the previous year and many years before.
	The Minister knows my views on the fishing quota and the impact that cuts to it have on fishing communities such as Brixham in my constituency, where we have a fleet of about 100 ships. In spite of all the cuts, disasters and catastrophies, we still have a substantial and successful fleet. We have more than 100 boats, 1,000 fishermen and 3,000 to 4,000 industry-related jobs; it is a going concern and a great industry with a big turnover. Whatever we and the Minister do here does not seem to matter much because the fishermen go on fishing.
	What is the problem with the common fisheries policy? We know that it has not worked. The deal struck in 1982 locked Britain into the highly dubious process of total allowable catches, which has run for 20 years. There was a mid-term review in 1992 but, by and large, the policy of total allowable catches has been rigidly adhered to. The Commission is now compelled to come up with proposals for the Council of Ministers on the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2003; 2002 will therefore be a significant year, as there is a genuine chance to reform the CFP.
	We all know that the aim of the CFP was to ensure a fair standard of living for those in the industry, to stabilise markets, to ensure the availability of supplies and to ensure that those supplies reach consumers at a reasonable price. The policy stipulates that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into Community policies, with a view to promoting sustainable development. The CFP has fundamentally failed in nearly every one of its aims. On the conservation of fish stocks, for instance, the number of fish in the seas around our shores has decreased year by year, even though they have put up a spirited fight. Scientists have warned that, with new equipment such as sonar and new, more powerful boats, many species of fish are under threat of extinction. I remember going to meetings in the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at which experienced, erudite scientists explained why fish would not survive if we did not continue to make cuts. The fish have managed to survive. Ever more draconian cuts have not decimated the fishing stock or the fishing industry.
	The whole thing is therefore a case of posturing—the fish posture; the fishermen posture; and we posture. I am not sure what the result is, but it is clear that there is an obscene situation in which, I am told, more fish are caught and thrown overboard than are landed. We do not know the exact number, because no one has weighed the whole catch. However, when there is a shortage of fish and a shortage of food in many parts of the world, it is appalling that we have a system in which more fish are thrown back into the sea than are landed simply because they do not fit a category in the total allowable catch. The CFP has therefore got to be changed so that, whatever fish is caught, it can be landed; we do not necessarily need a quota of that species.
	I have discussed the matter with the Minister before, and we would go back to the tie-up proposals and consider the number of days at sea. There would be fewer boats, but fishermen would be allowed to keep all the fish that they caught; they would not have to throw them overboard before landing. Obviously, there are problems because there are 17,000 to 18,000 fishing vessels in Spain. There will be difficulties with European countries with a large number of boats that are subject to the same process. We have to move to a new process which, I believe, should be based on days at sea, vessel tie-up and being able to land all the fish that are caught.
	The Commission's Green Paper is pretty good; it shows that the CFP is unworkable and many aspects of it are welcome. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and visited Spain before it assumed the presidency of the EC a few weeks ago. I was impressed by the Spanish Minister with responsibility for fisheries, who is a professional and says all the right things. He is well briefed and said all the things that we wanted to hear; he agreed that the current policy, which allows hundreds of thousands of tons of dead fish to be thrown back into the sea rather than allowing them to be landed on shore and sold is economically unjustified and immoral. He also agreed that the reform of the CFP is necessary if we are to protect fish stocks and, at the same time, ensure that maritime industries and all the onshore industries associated with fishing remain viable. He supported the proposal that the CFP should move towards regional management. The key question is whether the Minister, his Spanish counterpart and others have got the will to replace the CFP with something better. That will be the test.
	I wish to touch on some areas of concern. Monitoring and control are essential and I hope that the Minister realises that they are important. We have talked about cross-border enforcement and other things, but we do not want more bureaucracy from the Commission. As I said, the Spanish fleet has about 17,000 to 18,000 ships; I am told that Spain has about 90,000 fishermen and 500,000 people in the Spanish fishing industry, which is a big part of the country's infrastructure. The standard joke is that there are 60 fishing inspectors, all based in Madrid, but I was assured by the Minister that they are not; they move around the ports. Our dealings with Spain will therefore be critical.
	Regional management is a good idea provided that the regions are given real power. In the interests of that much forgotten concept, subsidiarity, which I greatly support, it is important that regional committees have power delegated down and can do what they want for their region. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) recognised that limiting effort was the way forward. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill became law in 1992, but was not enforced. It is therefore on the statute book waiting to be used. The Minister should not feel that he has to spend time in the House introducing a new Bill; the Conservatives have done it for him already. I am quite sure that—with the consent of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman—the Opposition would be very happy for the Minister to use that legislation in the manner that he thinks is most useful. That would be a useful thing to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) was going to say something on that issue, but he could not attend the debate because of important constituency engagements.
	I have simply gone round the course on the issues. I have travelled back from New York to make this powerful speech—I was at the Inter-Parliamentary Union and thought that they could probably do without me for a day. I did not want to miss this debate because it is always important. I also wanted to hear the Minister rehearse the same words and mouth the same platitudes that he has been saying for so many years, and he has not disappointed me at all. Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, ahead of all the other Conservative Members. I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Shona McIsaac: Given the number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall try to keep my remarks brief. I shall try to represent the views of two organisations operating in the north-east Lincolnshire area, the Grimsby Fish Market and the Grimsby Fish Merchants Association. I thank both Martin Boyers, the chief executive of Grimsby Fish Market, for taking the time to give me his views on CFP reform, and Steve Norton, the chief executive of the association. They would like the Minister to take several messages, which I shall outline, to the Fisheries Council.
	The two organisations feel that the industry itself will have to be much more involved in decision making on CFP reform. They also feel that the European Union has not taken sufficient action to protect fish stocks, and that that issue could be resolved if the industry were more involved in the decision-making process. They also feel that fleet over-capacity must be addressed because of the adverse effect on the marine environment.
	The organisations also believe that in the current climate, the review must deal with stock conservation, which is the most important issue facing the CFP. They believe that the industry and other stakeholders will have to be involved in the decision-making process and that sustainable fisheries and environmental protection are aspects of that. The objective is an economically viable and self-sufficient fisheries sector.
	The organisations feel that cuts in fleet size will have to be made sensitively and should not penalise those who depend for their living on the fishing industry. Not only should financial aid be sufficient to ensure that those leaving the industry are well compensated for loss of livelihood, it should be made available to address various educational issues.
	Although compensation for those who lost their livelihood in the cod wars had been agreed, no payments were made until, I think, just before Christmas last year. In the past year, however, thousands of those men have been compensated. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for all that he did to support the campaign, which has helped the men to get justice. Although there are still a few problems to iron out, all of us who were involved in the campaign thank him for his help. The campaign has also highlighted the sensitivity of the compensation issue. We have been campaigning for compensation for those who were affected by the cod wars, but we do not want future generations of hon. Members to have to campaign to address compensation issues arising in today's industry. That is a particular fear.
	Earlier this year, my hon. Friend announced assistance for fishing communities, which was much welcomed by hon. Members who represent fishing communities. However, as has been pointed out in some excellent research by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), there are concerns about how that money is allocated. If there is another such initiative, I hope that we will ensure that assistance goes to the fishing communities that are most affected by quota cuts.
	The previous Government did not serve the fishing communities well on a related compensation issue, providing almost no assistance in the attempt to obtain compensation for those communities after the cod wars. Moreover, British taxpayers are still paying for the action that the Thatcher Government took against Spanish fishermen. That situation angered fishermen across the United Kingdom, and people should remember that it demonstrated that Conservative Members are no friends of the fishing industry.
	The speech by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) did not reveal what the Opposition would do to assist Britain's fishing communities. The Tories did nothing to address quota hopping, which resulted in the payment of damages of, I think, more than £50 million—it was certainly millions of pounds. Indeed, I believe that they also illegally removed the UK fishing vessel register. What they did to the fishing community was scandalous. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has done about quota hoppers. The problem now seems to be declining because of the action that the Government have taken.
	On compensation and decommissioning money, we must consider all the small businesses such as fish producers and smokeries in Grimsby docks. Such businesses are also affected by the reduction of quotas and by decommissioning—issues that can have an severe knock-on effect in the community and on small businesses. That must be considered more. When we discuss fisheries, we talk far too often only about the men and boats, rather than about all the associated industries on which our communities depend for employment. I should also like fishing communities' local authorities to be regarded as stakeholders in these matters. They should be more involved in decision making and discussion. The other matter that the organisations in my area would like my hon. Friend to take to the Fisheries Council is industrial fishing. Anybody who looks at the evidence will see that the Danish industrial fisheries are doing particular damage and are probably undermining the cod and hake recovery programmes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned concern expressed by the Grimsby Fish Producers Organisation about climate and the fact that red mullet and swordfish have recently been found off the Lincolnshire coast. He said that that obviously related to global warming and climate change. There could be something in that suggestion. We must be very careful about climate change, especially with regard to the hydrodynamics of the ocean. If the ice caps melt and fresh water is released, salinity and water movements will be affected. The effect would be to switch off the gulf stream and the north Atlantic drift, to make waters here much colder—

Elliot Morley: And to drown Cleethorpes.

Shona McIsaac: Indeed, most of my constituency would probably disappear under the sea.
	We must be very careful when talking about climate change. Grimsby's fish producers are not happy with the scientific research. They feel that it is flawed and that the vessels are returning to the same grids year after year, while the changing hydrodynamics, currents and temperature of the ocean mean that the fish are moving to different areas. They believe that we might be getting false data, so they would like the scientific research to be reconsidered.
	I believe that changes in quota allocation and the reduction in quotas will probably not have a severe effect on Grimsby. I am sad to say that many fishermen are taking the opportunity to decommission their vessels. If all those who have applied to decommission do so, the changes will not have much of an effect on the fleet because it simply will not exist.
	I should like quickly to mention two final points to my hon. Friend the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby mentioned by-catch, in relation to which I want to raise one specific issue: harbour porpoises. I think that 7,000 harbour porpoises are probably killed by the Danish fleet every year and 1,000 by our fishing vessels. I hope that the Minister will express concern about the matter when he attends the Fisheries Council, as there are EU regulations that relate to it. Perhaps measures such as the use of acoustic devices could be introduced to try to reduce unwanted by-catch.
	I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to disregard totally the comments of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby about culling, shooting and decimating the seal population of our islands. The biggest consumers of young fish are other fish. The seals are visible, and therefore some people, like him, try to blame them.

Alex Salmond: I say to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that I shall present some evidence on the migration of fish. She thought for a moment that I was going to talk about seals. I am sure that she will find the evidence interesting; I have already discussed it with the Minister, and I shall read out an extract. It is the first detailed evidence to support the view that cod stocks in particular have substantially moved and that that might undermine some of the methods of current scientific research.
	First, I want to outline some of the politics of the industry. When I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) about the Minister's longevity, I could not help thinking about the transience of Tory fishing spokesmen. They come and go and leave their speeches behind them. I have heard it all before. She speaks with some vigour, but as she developed her speech, I could not help reflecting that there was something to be said for the laid-back approach of her predecessor, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
	Conservative Members do not want to talk about the history of the common fisheries policy and their involvement in it. Given the vast expanse of green Benches with no Conservative Members to fill them, it would be unfair to put the boot in too hard. [Hon. Members: "Go on."] It will not stop me. Let us remember that the Conservative Government sold fishing down the river on entry into the then Common Market. In the words of the famous Scottish Office memo of the time, in the overall importance of the negotiations, fishermen were "expendable". For 18 years, not only did the Tory Government refuse to concede generally agreed sources of aid, which the EU would have accepted, for the fishing industry, but they traded its interests at every opportunity.
	The hon. Member for Congleton said that horse trading—perhaps seahorse or horse mackerel trading—was part and parcel of the CFP. There was never any doubt in 18 years of government who was traded first. Time and again, the interests of the fishing industry in Scotland and elsewhere was subordinated to other policy objectives in the wider European structures.
	If we consider other fishing nations, the lesson is not whether they are in or outwith the CFP, but the priority that they allocate to fishing, whatever structure they operate. Norway, outwith the EU, allocates a huge priority to its fishing industry. Year after year, it secures a good deal for its fishermen in the Europe-Norway negotiations. In the EU, Spain and Denmark accord a huge priority to fishing. Year after year, in aid or, in the case of Denmark, protection of the abomination of industrial fishing, they secure a good deal for their fishermen because of the priority that they attach to the industry.
	The priority that the Conservative party accords to the fishing industry is shown by the vast expanse of green emptiness behind what remains of the Conservative Front Bench. With the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who has attended almost every fisheries debate—although perhaps not as many as the Minister—not one Conservative Member, let alone the party, expresses an avid interest in the industry.
	Let me consider the Government briefly. The Minister knows that I admire him greatly, but my comments constitute a warning. He confirmed in a debate in Westminster Hall earlier this year that his previous boss had complained in a letter, which was leaked to The Herald, that he had been "holding the line" against allocating decommissioning grants across the fishing industry. He then wrote—[Interruption.] I am sure that the those on the Tory Front Bench would be interested to hear this. If they listened to it, they might be able to make better speeches on the industry.
	The previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote:
	"We now face a development in Scotland, where the executive has responded to mass demonstrations by fishermen by offering a decommissioning scheme worth up to £25m for next year. The English industry is arguing strongly that this puts them at an obvious disadvantage and that I should offer a similar package. This is a most unfortunate situation."
	I am glad that the mobilisation of the fishing industry in Scotland secured some sort of financial package, even if it was not the one that I would have chosen for the industry. I am equally glad that that motivated the Minister—or his former boss—to secure something for the fishing industry. Would it not be better, though, if we had Ministers who were prepared and able to secure a package for the industry without being embarrassed by the success of the campaign in Scotland, or who were prepared to listen to the industry as a priority?

Frank Doran: This is the third or fourth time that I have heard that letter read out in a debate, either here or in Westminster Hall. It obviously still has quite a bit of life left in it. The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous, so far as the fishermen's demonstration is concerned, because my recollection is that the money had already been offered, and was on the table, before the demonstration started. It was not offered as a consequence of the demonstration.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is confusing a series of demonstrations at fishing ports—which he chooses to remember because he likes to embarrass fishermen—with the demonstration that involved 180 fishing boats being photographed sailing under the Forth bridge. That was the largest mobilisation of fishing effort that we have seen in recent times, and it occurred before the announcement of the package—

Frank Doran: indicated dissent

Alex Salmond: Yes, it did. I was in the Scottish Parliament and at the fishing demonstration—

Frank Doran: rose—

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman sit down for a second? The fishing demonstration on the River Forth occurred the week before the announcement of the package in the Scottish Parliament. The Government were then defeated on that package because the Parliament at that stage wanted a tie-up scheme. He should not complain to me but to the former Minister, who said clearly in the leaked letter that it was the mobilisation and the campaign—to which the Executive responded in Scotland—that resulted in the package being offered. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should pursue his argument with his colleagues rather than me.
	The lesson for the Minister is that there was a Fisheries Minister in Scotland who resisted the justified demand for a tie-up scheme, and she is no more. The Minister's former boss resisted the demand for a decommissioning scheme, and he is no more. If this long-serving Minister wishes to stay in office, let him listen with an open mind to these justified arguments from the fishing industry north and south of the border. I hope that he will.
	I have many difficulties with the case advanced by the Conservatives. My main difficulty is that they do not address where we are at present, or how to get the best deal that we possibly can in the current political context. If the Conservatives were proposing to leave the European Union, of course they could adopt a new fisheries policy, although it would then have to be negotiated with other people, new arrangements would have to be made, and all the rest of it. But that is not their policy, so their argument has no meaning whatsoever.
	Those of us who do not like the CFP—including the fishermen's organisations, whatever their standpoint—who see its faults and limitations and who have made speech after speech and argument after argument against it, have managed to engage with some aspects of it. We can now see a glimmer of light, at least in certain areas, such as in the growing acceptance of the concept of zonal management. We are not there yet: not everybody has agreed to it. There is still resistance across the European Union, but there is majority support for it, so far as we can judge. As the Minister knows, it was at least mentioned favourably—let us say no more than that—in the fisheries policy Green Paper. My late colleague, Dr. Alan McCartney, should be mentioned in despatches as a pioneer of that approach to fisheries management, in which fisheries organisations north and south of the border engaged. They can now see a possibility of the policy coming to fruition.
	The engagement of scientists and fishermen in exploratory and research voyages is very much in its infancy, but the Scottish Fishermen's Federation told us yesterday that it hopes that it will make the scientific research more meaningful. The Scottish industry in particular has pioneered certain technical measures. I know that they are not the Minister's specific responsibility, but I hope that he will do his level best to ensure that they receive their proper reward in terms of the allocation of quota. The industry has been told, "Use technical measures to conserve fish," so those measures cannot be ignored when questions of quota are decided.
	I must refer to what I promised the House is interesting research and evaluation that I hope will help the Minister in arguing about cod migration in the coming negotiations. Unless there is at least an increase in the cod quota, the recovery in other North sea stocks and nephrops stocks or quotas in particular will be badly affected. Any benefit that fishermen should take from a recovery in stocks or a well sustained industry such as the shellfish industry will be ruined by what may be done to the cod allocation and quota.
	The Scottish Fishermen's Organisation has carried out a study of boats fishing for northern cod in particular, and I shall give the Minister the full report for his evaluation, but I want to read the House a few paragraphs. It states:
	"The reduction in the cod total allowable catch for the North Sea in the current year was amongst the most savage reductions ever imposed in any fishery. The 2001 TAC is some 45 per cent. lower than the 2000 TAC. And this reduction was on top of significant reduction in the previous year when most of the Scottish groups undertaking sectoral quota management responsibilities took their full allocations of . . . cod.
	There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the spatial distribution of cod in the North Sea is in the process of changing and in particular the distribution of cod is moving in a northerly direction. This is highlighted by the fact that the Scottish groups have taken a far greater proportion of their cod allocations in the North Sea than those groups based further south. And an examination of individual vessel landings who concentrate on cod suggest that they have not seen much of a reduction in their cod catches in the current year.
	The reality of the current year has been that despite the cod closure areas, the reduced fishing year resulting from the fishermen's tie up, the reduced vessel allocations necessitated by reduced total allowable catches, vessels have actually maintained their cod catches in the northern sector of the North Sea.
	What this does suggest is required is a reappraisal of the way in which the sampling of North Sea cod stock is carried out. Taking samples from the same area over a long period of time is in accord with scientific discipline. But when the anecdotal evidence suggests that changes have taken place in the spatial distribution of a stock then the strict disciplines of comparability have to be revised. If the Western mackerel stock was still being assessed on the basis of catches in the Minches which was the main catching area 20 years ago, the scientific assessment would be that the stock had . . . vanished. The reality is that the stock has seldom been larger but is in a different location. It is essential that the cod stock in the North Sea be treated as one that may have been over fished but has responded to environmental and other factors and may very well be in . . . better condition than a narrow interpretation of the known facts suggests. The fact is that all the facts are not known because yesterday's science has not taken account of all the changes that are taking place within the marine ecosystem within the North Sea."
	To back up that detailed analysis, the fishing results from 22 vessels specialising in catching cod in northern waters produced significant evidence: those vessels are suffering less of a reduction in catch than would otherwise be expected.
	I know that the Minister will take that evidence on board and, if the worst comes to the worst and he is unable to negotiate a satisfactory cod quota in the first round at the European Council, he might go for a mid-year review based on a special scientific assessment of those areas in spring, which is the next available period.
	I hope that he takes that evidence on board, because, following the decommissioning victory, if that is what it was, a huge number of Scottish boats applied for decommissioning. That in its turn shows how depressed the industry is. Young men in my constituency are being asked to go to sea for £10,000 a year: there is thus a shortage of experienced seamen and crews, with all the consequent dangers.
	The processing sector cannot survive without a steady supply of fish. We have evidence that many stocks are on the way to recovery: in many areas, the fish are there. It would be a tragedy if we could not manage the difficulty that we are experiencing, certainly with cod stocks, in a way that allowed full access to fishing opportunities, and enabled as many as possible of our constituents to retain their livelihoods.
	The fishing policy is not just about the conservation of fish, although that is vital. It is not just about the conservation of one species—cod—however important that may be. It is about the conservation of fishing communities. I trust that the Fisheries Minister—a long-lasting Fisheries Minister—will bear that in mind as he takes our case to Europe.

Joan Humble: I apologise to both my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) for being unable to stay for the winding-up speeches. I wish the Minister well in his efforts at the Fisheries Council. He is well respected in fishing communities for his knowledge and understanding of the industry, and if there is anyone who can take our message away and argue the case forcefully it is him. However, none of us underestimates the difficulties that that may involve, especially in the context of the savage quota cuts that are having a particularly dramatic effect in the Irish sea and on Fleetwood's fishermen. I shall concentrate on the impact on Fleetwood.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) pointed out, we are talking not only about catching effort, but about fishing communities and about all the jobs in the onshore industry. We are talking about the auction hall, the processors, the retailers and the wholesalers. Many more jobs onshore depend on the catching effort. The CFP was introduced to safeguard fishing communities, but it has not done very well in that regard. We must ensure that it does rather better in future.
	Franz Fischler, the European Fisheries Commissioner, visited Fleetwood recently. I think that it was the first time that a European Commissioner had done so. I thank my friend Terry Wynn, MEP for facilitating the visit, which was much appreciated by the local fishing community and all representatives of the local fishing industry. In the past, they had gone to Brussels to put their case—this was the first occasion on which Brussels had come to them. Commissioner Fischler not only listened to what they had to say, but engaged in a constructive debate with them, and his Cabinet member Maya Kirshner remained the next day to take part in even more detailed discussions.
	I am pleased that Commissioner Fischler recognises the substantial shortcomings of the CFP. In an article in the 21 September edition of Fishing News, he said:
	"We have to end the cycle of short term measures which are detrimental to both fish resources and the fisheries sector."
	That reflects what happens annually here. We have a relatively short debate, and then the Fisheries Minister goes to Europe. Everything is done in a rush. We need a much better system of organising quotas and organising the industry.
	Commissioner Fischler went on:
	"There is no doubt in my mind that the fishing industry must be more involved in fisheries decision making."
	That is why local fishermen welcomed his visit, but there has been disappointment in Fleetwood at recent announcements by the Commission, both about the substantial cuts in quota—the 55 per cent. cut in the haddock quota is huge—and about the operation of the Irish sea cod recovery programme for next year. I hope that at this late stage the Government will press the Commission and the Council of Ministers further on some aspects of the conservation plan for next year.
	My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of many of the issues that I shall raise, because I have raised them with him over the past two years in detailed correspondence. I am pleased to say that he has, on occasion, been able to respond positively. However, we are now addressing those issues against the backdrop of substantial cuts and an industry that is looking for some sort of help for the future.
	With regard to the cod recovery programme, I wish to raise the issue of the closed area in the Irish sea. The eastern Irish sea—Liverpool bay and Morecambe bay—was included in the 2000 closure programme but not in this year's. However, the eastern Irish sea is recognised as a major cod spawning ground. Fleetwood fishermen requested of Commissioner Fischler that it be brought back into any future programme closures. They also asked that it should include any closure that had a significant by-catch of cod. The derogation to beam trawlers working in the eastern Irish sea is unacceptable to Fleetwood fishermen.
	My constituents are disappointed that neither of those requests was met in next year's plan for the Irish sea. That is especially bewildering because the explanatory memorandum to the proposed new Council regulations acknowledges that cod stocks have reduced to such a level that they cannot readily replenish themselves by reproduction. If stocks are so low, why will not the Commission listen to Fleetwood men who say from personal experience that spawning cod are being caught in the eastern Irish sea in large numbers by Belgian and Dutch beam trawlers? By mid-September, in area 7a Belgian beam trawlers alone had caught 235 tonnes of cod, or 11 per cent. of the total allowable catch. The total Belgian and Dutch cod quota for area 7a, including swaps, is now 310 tonnes, which accounts for 15 per cent. of the TAC. The information that the Fleetwood Fish Forum has from the surveillance carried out by the enforcement agency is that the main effort of those vessels in January, February, March and April 2001 in area 7a was carried out in statistical rectangles, including those for the eastern Irish sea that were included in the first cod recovery programme.
	Because of their cod catches, Dutch and Belgian beam trawlers are included in the recovery programme in the North sea. Their combined quotas account for 15 per cent. of the TAC for that area. At the cod and hake meeting in Brussels on 19 October, they were included in the measures to protect hake. They asked for a derogation to use 80 mm nets in The Hague boxes to the south-west of the UK, but were refused. During the proposed closed season in the western Irish sea—11 February to 30 April—the beamers come into the eastern Irish sea and catch fish heavy with roe, swimming along the bottom of the sea. That is not conservation.
	Fleetwood men are not anti-Dutch and Belgian beamers per se, but they want fair treatment. They want the Dutch and Belgian vessels to be incorporated in any cod recovery programme in the Irish sea, as they are in the North sea and to the south-west of England. The Fleetwood men think that beamers should be brought into the programme as well as recognising that small local boats with low horsepower must be allowed to continue to fish in the so-called Blackpool box. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall the problem in 2000 when those vessels were not allowed to fish and had nowhere else to go. That caused problems. Their effort is very small and they do not affect the cod recovery programme or the viability of the fisheries.
	My hon. Friend the Minister and I have corresponded on mesh sizes. Fleetwood fishermen tell me that mesh sizes should be linked to horse power. They see beam trawlers exploiting regulations on mesh sizes and mixed fisheries and catching a wide variety of fish. That undermines the effort to conserve stocks in the Irish sea.
	Information from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea shows that cod, whiting and sole in area 7a are being fished beyond biological limits. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will re-examine the issues of mesh sizes and the quotas that are allocated in mixed fisheries. I hope that he will also look into the way in which vessels such as beam trawlers, which specialise in catching sole, can catch substantial amounts of cod as well, even though they are using a much smaller mesh size. Moreover, I am told that the mesh size for sole catches many fish that are not yet mature and have not yet reproduced. Clearly, that is another serious conservation issue.
	I understand too that the Commission is looking at the possibility of introducing a uniform mesh size of 120 mm for cod fisheries around the whole of the UK. This is a very technical matter, and my fishermen sometimes show me the size of the mesh and the twine that they use in their nets. They tell me that the thicker twine that they use in the 100 mm mesh works in exactly the same way as thinner twine in a 120 mm mesh. I understand that that is accepted, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look into that when the Commission considers introducing a uniform mesh size.
	I come briefly to the matter of governance. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the recommendations from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on regional fisheries management. They are widely supported, with the proviso that the particular needs of sub-regions around the country must also be taken into account.
	All parties involved accept that decision making has been too remote and bureaucratic. The Commission's Green Paper acknowledges that fishermen have not been sufficiently involved in developing acceptable technical measures. We need the advice and expertise of local fishermen, scientists and administrators if we are to formulate a policy that will deliver a sustainable fishery, and which will also be acceptable to those who work in the industry.
	Several hon. Members have commented on decommissioning, an issue that excites very different opinions. Previous schemes led to a large number of vessels being taken out, and meant that no new investment was made. Seven years ago, 40 local boats were registered with the Fleetwood Fish Producers Organisation, but today there are only 20. We could end up with no local vessels fishing our local waters in the Irish sea. That would be dreadful, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise the impact that decommissioning can have on fishing communities. At the same time, however, some fishermen regard decommissioning as an opportunity to leave the industry with some dignity.
	Finally, I shall sum up by thanking Tom Watson and the members of the Fleetwood Fish Forum for their hard work in supporting the local fishing industry. I am also grateful to them for the many hours that they spend briefing me and keeping me updated on issues of local concern. Their plea to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Council of Ministers is that they work to protect the British fishing industry and to support the needs of our local fishing communities, so that when—and if—stocks recover, Fleetwood fishermen will still be around to benefit.

Alistair Carmichael: I apologise to the Minister for having to leave the Chamber during his speech. This was no discourtesy to the House or the Minister but, as a member of the Committee dealing with the Proceeds of Crime Bill, I found myself in mid-sentence when the Committee was adjourned at 11.25 this morning, and was left with no option but to return. I welcomed much in the Minister's speech, and shall make every effort to familiarise myself with it in its entirety in the Official Report.
	I welcome this debate, as many other Members have done. It has struck me, as a fairly new Member, how difficult it is to get the opportunity to discuss fishing matters. The Minister is no doubt aware that at the last Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time there were no fishing questions. On the previous occasion, the one question on fishing—about total allowable catches and their effect on Essex, that great fishing community—was given less than two minutes. Therefore, I am glad to take part in this debate.
	It is difficult to overstate the importance of fishing to my constituency, especially to Shetland. Some 33 per cent. of the Shetland economy—£180 million—is derived from fishing and some 20 per cent. of the active Shetland population is employed directly in fishing. The Minister knows that because he attended a seminar in Shetland as recently as May this year. His attendance was greatly welcomed and I hope that he will return there soon to keep up to speed with what the fishermen in my constituency are saying.
	I do not know whether the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has ever been to Shetland. I suspect that after her contribution to the debate, if she were minded to make the journey she might be given a rather hotter welcome than would previously have been the case. We have long felt that the 18 years of a Tory Government damaged the fishing industry in Shetland and elsewhere in Scotland because of their indifference towards us. I was intrigued to see from her contribution that their policy has moved on from indifference to downright hostility.
	I was particularly concerned that the hon. Lady—who, unfortunately, has not had the courtesy to stay for the rest of the debate—felt it necessary to quote from the minutes of the Shetland Fishermen's Association in trying to support her contention that the Scottish pelagic fleet was given the benefit of a different enforcement regime. She referred to one of my constituents, Josie Simpson, and quoted the part of the minutes that said:
	"Josie Simpson reported his disappointment at a recent pelagic enforcement and monitoring committee meeting where it was made clear the Fisheries Department intend to leave it up to the industry to clean up overquota landings."
	That would be a fairly flimsy justification, at best, for the hon. Lady's remarkable assertion. However, I have obtained the whole minute, and from what follows it occurs to me that the hon. Lady may have come very close to misleading the House with regard to the position of the Shetland Fishermen's Association and my constituent. The minute continues:
	"A discussion took place and it was agreed that the Association should continue with our existing policy of calling for black fish to be eliminated across the whole of the EU. Disappointment was expressed that the Fisheries Department did not appear to show the will to eliminate overquota landings while actively trying to eliminate mis-reporting of fishing grounds. It was agreed the focus of their enforcement was wrong.
	It was reported that new satellite monitoring rules recently introduced require a manual report to be sent to the Fisheries Department every 2 hours rather than 24 hours if the equipment breaks down."
	That does not sound like an enforcement regime that is in any way lax or indifferent. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will address that matter and put things straight when he sums up. The hon. Lady has just returned to the Chamber, but I shall not take interventions at present.
	The Minister made reference in his speech to the elements of the common fisheries policy that he considers work well. I commend him for that and hope that he will give his blessing to the continuation of another element of the current policy—the position with regard to the Shetland box. That is crucial to the fishing industry in the northern isles. It has worked exceptionally well and might indeed serve as a prototype for zonal management under a reformed common fisheries policy. The licensing scheme limits the number of vessels of more than 26 m in length, and it is extremely important as it also allows unrestricted access for smaller boats.
	The scheme is an important element in sustainability. It encourages small boats and it is crucial that inshore fishermen in Orkney and Shetland have such unrestricted access. They must be able to continue landing in Shetland and Orkney, as their contribution to the local fish processing industry is also of immense importance.
	Several hon. Members referred to decommissioning and tie-up. The Scottish decommissioning package of £25 million is most generous. I ask the Minister, however, not to shut the door on tie-up and not to close his mind to it. I commend to him the report issued by the World Wide Fund for Nature, "Now or Never", which makes a strong case that short to medium-term financial assistance of that sort is a sensible long-term precaution and a conservation measure. I urge the Minister to use every available opportunity to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that funding will be available for a tie-up scheme in the future.
	I thank the Minister for his support—unlike the support of the hon. Member for Congleton, his was unqualified—for the case being put by the Orkney islands and Shetland islands councils for the supremely important leaseback schemes for quota that they are operating in the northern isles. I have no doubt that they are doing so properly. I urge the Minister vigorously to pursue at every opportunity the case for maintaining such schemes. They are of crucial importance to one of the most fragile industries in one of our most remote and peripheral communities.
	Sustainability for the Shetland fishing industry is not some high principle or a great ideal to which we must aspire. No community depends on fishing as we do. For us, it is essential to our continued survival and economic prosperity. I urge the Minister to remember that when he goes to Brussels.

Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). As I come from the community of Scarborough and Whitby, I can appreciate that he has a complete grasp of the strong wishes of his community in respect of the fisheries debate. I welcome him to this debate, and hope that he will make speeches in many such debates.
	We experienced a sense of deja vu during the contribution of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I am sorry that he is no longer in his place. In fact, it was not so much deja vu; his approach to this annual debate was more like "Groundhog Day". Obviously, I am sure that all hon. Members were pleased to hear that he had flown back specially from New York to make his contribution, but I had a feeling that I had heard his speech many times before.
	Unlike many of the other hon. Members who have spoken, I feel that the agenda is moving forward. I commend to the Minister the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), and I commend them for the fact that the agenda is moving on.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the one Tory Member who has been here for most of the debate. I have listened to many speeches made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), and the one that he made today was the most practical, most up to date and most open-minded that I have ever heard him make. I think that he is changing his mind.

Lawrie Quinn: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's wisdom on the issue, but from my perspective, having replaced a similarly minded gentleman in the Scarborough and Whitby constituency in 1997, it certainly sounded like "Groundhog Day". For those who are not aware of that movie, the point is that when the principal character wakes up in the morning he has forgotten what he learned the day before. He finally gets there, but it takes a long time. Surely if the Conservative Benches are to be filled in future annual fisheries debates, they have a long way to go and many more groundhog days before them.
	I regret that, once again, the editorial line taken in today's Yorkshire Post—the principal newspaper in Yorkshire and the Humber region—involves a sense of "Groundhog Day". I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to read that article if he has not already done so. The headline is "Fishermen fear scrap heap in quota cuts". I recall seeing that headline as a preface to the debates that we had last year, the year before and the one before that. In any case, I suggest that the media need to play their part in the wider national debate on the economic, environmental and socio-economic issues that are important to the fishing communities. They need to get down to the quayside more often.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for visiting my constituency on numerous occasions in recent years. He has met my constituents, who rely on the industry for their incomes. He has listened to them and engaged with them, and he goes from strength to strength in their minds, especially given his record of representing the industry, which is very important to my constituency and many coastal communities around the country.
	On most of the visits that my hon. Friend has made to my constituency he will have met Mr. Arnold Locker—a well-known fisherman in Whitby, the principal fishing port in my constituency. I am glad to say that he is now the NFFO's chairman-elect. I very much look forward to receiving the national briefings that he may send to those of us in the all-party fisheries group next year. I hope that Arnold will take the time to come to London to help to brief us for next year's annual fisheries debate, and I hope to see him then.
	Like many fishermen, Arnold Locker is very good at communicating verbally. Having previously heard from Arnold an awful lot, I was very pleased that he has now put pen to paper. He has written a very interesting article in the current edition of NFFO news, which is an important newspaper for the industry. In many respects, Arnold's "View from the wheelhouse", as it is called, reflects the current opinion, which may be dangerous to my hon. Friend, that the great esteem in which he is held in Scarborough and Whitby and other fishing communities may be affected and that the choppy seas that he may face in the negotiations may be even rougher than any of us had previously thought.
	Arnold Locker's article is entitled "Why the cod plan must be scrapped" and it conveys the message that I have heard on the quayside. Fishermen in Whitby are suspicious of the Commission because, as the Minister said, its recovery plan for the North sea chooses to ignore key parts of the science.
	Arnold writes:
	"It is ludicrous that this cod recovery plan is still going ahead at a rate of knots despite the fact that we don't know why there is no cod in our part of the North Sea. It seems unlikely that overfishing is the reason, given the fact that the fleet in Yorkshire and Humberside has been reduced by about 80 per cent. in recent years. The real reason is probably due to global warming, which is well illustrated by the good catches of red mullet our boats are now getting. This is further backed-up by catch statistics . . . which reveal that cod catches are much higher in the northern North Sea compared with areas off the English coast."
	Such areas include Yorkshire. He adds:
	"Nobody seems to care. It also seems crazy that our Yorkshire boats, ranging from 200 to 480hp and with a small bollard pull, have to work to the same mesh size regulations as much bigger 2,000hp stern trawlers. Conservation policy, or the lack of it, means that the whole industry is on a roller-coaster at the moment. We need to get some sense into everything and the first step should be a far-reaching investigation into conservation policy. And until that is done, the pointless cod recovery plan should be shelved".
	Arnold Locker is not only putting pen to paper but talking to many people in my constituency and up and down the Yorkshire and Humber coast. The fact that someone like him is doing that means that the immense credibility of the long-term sustainable approach to fishing policy that scientists have been able to generate in the fishing community is being questioned. We must be able to demonstrate to the industry that the science is being applied, so, as many Members have said, I hope that the Minister will stress in the Council meeting on 16 and 17 December that the science cannot be ignored.
	If the science is ignored, short-term damage will be done to the delicate relationship between the quayside, the scientists and this place. Furthermore, longer-term damage might be done to a conservation programme that fishermen and key stakeholders can buy into. The problem is not just the short-term one of quotas, but the long-term credibility of the Minister and this place when we talk about the national interest.
	People on the quayside have asked me to raise several other specific questions in the debate. If the Minister does not have time to respond in his closing remarks, I hope that he will be able to write to me.
	Does my hon. Friend accept that effort control in the form proposed by the Commission for the recovery plan will be both brutal in effect and uncertain in its benefits? Does he accept that the short-term losses associated with the North sea mesh size increase to 120 mm will be crippling for the industry? Does he accept that there is manifest agreement for public investment in recovery measures that will allow the fishing industry to rebuild its stocks to optimum levels? I stress to my hon. Friend that many Whitby fishermen have benefited more from the recovery package in Scotland than from the English scheme. Those fishermen are sceptical about what the public purse is managing to achieve.
	Access to the North sea—my hon. Friend has heard us get on this old hobby horse many times before—is pertinent to the debate in which he will engage in Brussels in the next week or so. What steps will the Government take to ensure that Spanish access to the North sea from 2003 will not result in a by-catch of quota species and an overall increase in the fishing effort?
	Other hon. Members mentioned industrial fishing. Every fisherman finds it abhorrent that Denmark and other north European countries can still use industrial fishing for non-human consumption purposes. Will he ensure that he is seen to press for that to change?
	On a local issue, a few salmon netsmen still fish out of the River Esk. My hon. Friend is aware that there is great concern about how long it is taking to conclude the negotiations on a compensation package to buy out the netsmen's licences. Obviously a tendering process is going on and I would appreciate it if he referred to the conclusion of that delicate negotiation.
	I wish my hon. Friend well on behalf of the fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby. I hope that he comes back with a headline settlement that is far better than the bleak prospect that we currently face, and that the next time he visits my constituency he is held in the same regard.

Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to participate in the annual debate on fisheries. It has been of a high quality, and I hope that the Minister appreciates the assistance that we are trying to give him in his difficult job as he takes his arguments into Europe on 16 and 17 December. In fact, I think that we should have an annual dinner each year in which mugs are cast. The Minister could be the honorary patron of the organisation and I might even buy some of the drinks.
	The debate has been valuable. The Minister has done well to secure a full day. I have much more confidence that the industry is in his hands rather than those of some of his predecessors who have sat on the Treasury Bench during my 18 years in this place. That is good. We hope that he will build on his reputation and use his experience to great effect on 16 and 17 December.
	Although I concur with much that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I fear that the situation in my constituency is as bad as it has ever been. We cannot avoid that, and it is not the Minister's fault. I have noticed for the first time that any sense of hope is beginning to disappear, especially among young skippers. That is very bad. In larger coastal communities and bigger sections of the industry, such as in Peterhead and the places represented by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), there is a higher critical mass. A village-based industry or a small coastal community reach a level at which skills, and the investment, go.
	There are two things that are different this year and that worry me. The volatility of scientific advice makes it harder for people to plan investment, marketing and processing. We have had long battles. The Minister has led the argument, with some success, that science is the thing to follow. Cod recovery plans and so on are the only way forward in the longer term. However, there are deeply worrying wild fluctuations in scientific advice and the statistics on which we base policy decisions. As a lay person, one would think that they cannot be right every year. On top of that we have to deal with the Commission's new complementary measures, which do not have anything directly to do with science and produce more difficult TAC situations with which we have to cope.
	In addition to those difficulties, we face an uncertain year come 2002. Everybody understands that the common fisheries policy needs reform. I know that the Minister understands that, and that he is aware of crucial issues such as zonal management and relative stability in the six and 12-mile limits, but they represent yet more uncertainty, and that does not help. We must all work harder still to address those issues.
	I am very worried about the level of discards in 2001, which other hon. Members have mentioned. It seems to me, from my experience and from what I am told, that there is a big biomass of undersized fish, and catching them is leading to discards on a scale that we have not seen for a long time. That may get worse next year. I do not know what can be done. In my constituency, 250 boxes of haddock that were just above minimum size were left unsold, so it is clear that even if one lands this stuff, there is no market for it. We need actively to address the issue of discards, and if the Minister can get better scientific advice and support on that, so much the better.
	I agree that transitional protection, to which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and many others referred, needs urgent consideration. I think that I can win an argument in my coastal communities that with the industry in a state of flux, if sensible scientific advice is consistently followed for five years, there will be better times ahead. However, fishermen will not be able to survive for that time, so some support is necessary. In Scotland, £25 million for decommissioning has gone a long way, and that programme has allowed people to exit the industry with dignity. Fishermen, particularly those with smaller boats, will find it hard to deal with the technical conservation measures that will come in early next year. The Government need to work harder and harder to provide the support that the fishing industry needs to survive until, we hope, the cod recovery programme and other measures come on-stream and come right.
	I subscribe to the view about ambient temperature changes that the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) usefully put on the record. We need to understand those important issues, but it is difficult for us, as policy makers who are laymen, to do so. I hope that we will not ignore the advice that we are being given.
	As I said, decommissioning is important, and industrial fishing must be dealt with, but I want to leave the Minister to consider two other issues. The first is the effect of the proposed cut in nephrops in my area, which will be very difficult to sell to fishermen. It is almost impossible to convince the sector in my constituency that such cuts are necessary. There has been a huge diversion of effort, which we all expected as a result of the cod recovery programme, so it is impossible for me to return to my constituency and defend nephrops cuts on the scale suggested by the commissioner. We produced evidence on that, and I was surprised by it because I thought that in the north-east sector there would have been a bigger cod by-catch. If the Minister takes any message from me to the negotiations on 16 and 17 December, it is that he should fight his hardest to try to inject more common sense into them.
	Secondly, as someone who spends quite a lot of his time in this place considering social security issues, I know that there are big changes ahead in the social security programme. The Government are sensibly moving towards working tax credits, but the way in which the fishing industry works, with days at sea determined by the weather, makes it difficult for people on jobseeker's allowance to try to get any sustainable help coherently delivered by the benefits system. It would be sensible if the Minister could spend half an hour with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. He could then explore whether the introduction of tax credits, later this year and beyond, will provide better support and ease access to the benefits system, particularly for crewmen.
	Of all the resources, fish are probably the main one on our minds in this debate, but if we do not have the skilled labour to go to sea, we are all wasting our time. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that young people are not prepared to contemplate any career in fishing, and it is becoming harder and harder for share fishermen north of the border to find crews to go to sea.
	Let us hope that the Minister can keep in mind all the points that have been raised. If, after the resolution of these difficult matters on 16 or 17 December, he can secure a meeting of the European Standing Committee under the scrutiny process, that would be appreciated by all.

Bob Blizzard: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in a fisheries debate, especially as it is the first time that I have been able to speak in one for more than two years, having served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That experience gave me some insight into the role of the Department in dealing with fisheries.
	I am sure that we could not have a more committed Fisheries Minister than my hon. Friend. As has been said, he is clearly the most knowledgeable Fisheries Minister we have had. He has become irreplaceable, even if after four years of fishing and floods, some of us may feel that he deserves promotion, or perhaps relief. It was said earlier that he was the best Fisheries Minister in a Labour Government; I think that he is the best in any Government. I know that he has a hard task in government carrying the flag for fishing, which is why I begin my contribution by saying why I believe fishing is important in national terms.
	First and obviously, fishing is a source of healthy and nutritious food—non-fattening food, as I have discovered in recent months, by focusing my diet more on fish. It is also an extremely popular food, though not always in the least fattening form. Fish and chips is our national dish. If hon. Members have not tasted them at their best, I invite them to sample the fish and chip shops of Lowestoft. It is inconceivable that we in the UK will not want to eat fish.
	We are an island nation, so it is unthinkable that we will not want to catch a substantial proportion of our fish ourselves. We expect to be a top fishing nation. We know that we are now catching much less than we did and that there are fewer fish to catch. Governments cannot conjure up more fish, but our industry is becoming weaker, relative to that of other countries that fish our waters. I shall return to that.
	All round our island are fishing ports and fishing communities. Fishing is especially important to places such as Lowestoft, where I live. It is not easy to find other work in such peripheral locations. Fishing in those communities is in people's hearts, as well as their minds. We know that there are only a fraction of the jobs that there were and that fishing is no longer the major part of those local economies as it once was. However, it is still a substantial part of the economy in Lowestoft, and it is an emotive issue.
	Everybody in a fishing community knows a fishing family and sadly, everybody knows a fishing family who has suffered a bereavement at sea. Fishing is rather like mining. When we see it in those terms, fishing has political importance, like mining. We should recognise that.
	Other hon. Members referred to the recent WWF report, "Now or Never", which is one of the most significant reports that we have had for a long time. It is significant because it resulted from a partnership between the WWF, an environmental organisation, and the fishermen's organisations. This is the first time that that has happened, as far as I know. It is the first of two new partnerships that I shall mention.
	I do not have time to dwell on the report, but it paints a grim picture. It notes that our fishing industry is disintegrating before our eyes. It charts the decline, and points out that the financial assistance to the UK fishing industry is among the lowest in the European Union: 850 euros per fisherman in the UK, compared with 3,532 in Belgium, 3,524 in Germany, 1,222 in the Netherlands and so on. As I said, the Government cannot conjure up more fish, but those figures suggest that we could do more. All countries face the same problem of stock depletion, but the Dutch and Spanish industries seem to be in a stronger position than ours.
	My principal contention is that this country needs a comprehensive plan for fishing, which will be achieved only by the Government and the industry working together in a formal taskforce. There should be a plan not just for conserving fish, vital as that is, but for the industry as well. The plan for the fish is obviously the common fisheries policy, which we are trying to reform; it certainly needs to be much better. We come to the House annually to discuss the usual measures—tax, multi-annual guidance programmes or MAGPs, recovery programmes, technical measures and so on—but what about the fishing industry? As other Members have said, if we succeed in conserving our fish and achieving a recovery of stocks, what shape will our industry be in? We must ensure that there is still a worthwhile industry to catch the fish.
	I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister the views of my local fishing industry on measures for the year ahead. In Lowestoft, the fleet of North sea plaice fishermen agrees with the scientists' recommendation of a total allowable catch of 77,000 tonnes for North sea plaice. The fishermen make that suggestion, despite knowing that there has been a better year class for plaice this year; they have asked me to urge my hon. Friend not to agree a higher quota in the Council of Ministers. They accept that the Dutch may try to push it up to 86,000 tonnes, but they do not want that because they want to conserve the fish. There is therefore a second remarkable partnership; fishermen and scientists agree on what the level of fishing should be. That came out yesterday in the meeting between the all-party group on fisheries and the NFFO, which is at one with the scientists. In those circumstances, the Commission should not disregard the science; I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that on 17 December, the politicians do not disregard it either.
	My plaice fishermen do not want closed areas, whether for North sea cod or other fish; they regard such areas as unfair for plaice fishermen, who have a tiny by-catch of cod. Last year, they were prevented from going to catch plaice by the cod closure programme. They appreciated the extra little box that my hon. Friend negotiated, but last winter was extremely tough, especially with high fuel prices. Like them, I feel that they could be allowed into closed areas under satellite monitoring, with their catches validated on landing. If there has to be a closure period this year or in future, I do not see why they cannot be allowed to do that. We would know exactly which boats are fishing; my fishermen do not catch much cod and must be allowed to carry on catching plaice when those fish are there to catch. They do not want proposals for tie-ups or days at sea, which would be impossible to manage because of their difficult circumstances.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that closure plans alone, without a measure of funded tie-up, simply lead to displacement of the overfishing problem?

Bob Blizzard: I certainly agree. My fishermen say that if there are tie-ups and closure periods without compensation, the industry will simply be unable to manage and will be brought to its knees. If that happens, we fear for the future.
	The Lowestoft plaice fishermen voluntarily use nets with a larger mesh, which is a key point for CFP reform. Why do we continue to allow smaller mesh sizes? How can fish recover if young fish are still being caught? It is madness not to address that crucial point. I want to emphasise that we must not penalise the plaice fishermen, whatever we agree we need to do for cod. I also have long-line fishermen in my constituency. Long-lining is an environmentally friendly and sustainable fishing method, although my fishermen cannot find any cod at the moment. They fear that stocks have already collapsed in the southern part of the North sea. They, too, are now at one with scientists. Last week, they came to see me and said that the "scientists were horrifically right" all along. Now they are looking for radical action to enable the cod that they fish to recover.
	We hope that a reformed common fisheries policy will deliver more fish. However, what about the industry? Some people in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say that they are concerned only with the fish, not the industry. If so, which Department sponsors the fishing industry? For my money, DEFRA is the only possibility.
	We need to do more. We know that £11 million of the £22.5 million which my hon. Friend the Minister announced in April was from the previous grant regime. On a small point, while I am dealing with that, I should say that there are grants to encourage long lining, which is a more environmentally sustainable fishing method. However, long-liners are asking whether they will have access to a further grant, to try something else, if they cannot find any fish by the use of long lines. I make that request to the Minister.
	There is £6 million for decommissioning. However, my trawler industry has told me that, in practice, it is difficult to decommission because environmental controls have resulted in ever fewer scrap facilities to chop up boats. Trawlermen feel that they may not be able to decommission to the required standard within the proposed time scale. They are therefore looking for sufficient flexibility to allow them, more simply, to put their boats beyond economic repair so that they cannot take to the water, but also to receive interim decommissioning money so that they can finish off the boats later. Smaller fishermen are also asking for decommissioning to apply to vessels under 10 m where there are too many such vessels.
	I shall not dwell on the next element of the £22.5 million package as I had an Adjournment debate on that in Westminster Hall. However, the £5.5 million fishing communities regeneration initiative was a travesty at every level. It was shared out between the regions, and certainly within the eastern region, in the wrong manner, and the money was often spent on the wrong things. Lowestoft lands almost 10 per cent. of England's catch, but it was offered a mere £65,000, out of £5.5 million.
	We have, however, had a bit of a breakthrough: we were offered another £60,000. That is being spent on some jolly good measures, and I wish that I had enough time to tell hon. Members about them. Nevertheless, I urge Ministers to dig into that regeneration money and try to ensure that it is spent on things that relate to the fishing industry, not on some of the things that it is being spent on that do not relate to the industry at all.
	The failure of the fishing communities regeneration initiative shows the need for a proper plan for the fishing industry. However, how can we work out such a plan when the industry is not nationalised but is a collection of private businesses? The Government have already developed such a model in the oil and gas industry. Three years ago, the oil and gas industry taskforce was established, comprising the leaders of that industry and officials from three Departments including the Treasury, and it was chaired by the Minister with responsibility for energy. It set itself a deadline and developed a plan for how that industry could get more resources out of the North sea, rather than closing down the operation more quickly than was necessary. The taskforce met the deadline and is now implementing the plan through another body called Pilot.
	I believe that we could do in fishing what we have done in the oil and gas industry. If we do not, our fishing industry will simply wither away. Pieces of it would fall off haphazardly, which would be no good for fishermen, for the communities in which they live or for the country. I doubt that we would ever recover from it.
	The WWF and NFFO report shows how investment in a transitional package can reap a rich return. If my hon. Friend the Minister can achieve such a plan and such a partnership, we shall have a future; we could look ahead with confidence. We have seen partnerships between scientists and fishermen and between fishermen and environmental organisations, but let us now see a partnership with the Government. If my hon. Friend can achieve that, I am sure that I would not be the only one saying that he is the best fisheries Minister we have had.

Henry Bellingham: I certainly endorse what the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said about fisheries regeneration funding and the need to get the best deal possible for his constituency. We will support him on that, because there are obviously important implications for King's Lynn as well.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) spoke about industrial fishing. I concur with what he said 100 per cent. I note that the Minister has visited his constituency; I hope that he will visit mine and talk to my fishermen. Indeed, I hope that he will come to Conservative-held constituencies. I do not know whether he is prepared to do so, but he has an open invitation to come to west Norfolk to speak to our local fishermen.
	I do not know why we are having this important debate on an Adjournment motion. We should be debating a substantive motion that would enable us to have a vote at the end. I am sure that the Government have nothing to fear when it comes to putting their case to a vote, but we obviously cannot have one this evening. None the less, I welcome the fact that we are having a full day's debate on this important subject.
	As most hon. Members whom I have heard have pointed out—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was not present for the whole debate; I had to move some amendments in a Standing Committee—the background to the debate is the reform of the common fisheries policy. In the course of the next year, the Commission will have to table a proposal for reform of the CFP. I am pleased to see that it is beginning to accept the arguments for a radical decentralisation of the CFP. I note especially that Commissioner Fischler now appears to be convinced that the new regional committees should hold real powers and responsibilities, rather than act merely in an advisory capacity.
	That is good news, but I still feel that the policy is fundamentally flawed. Hon. Members have spoken much about the cod and hake fishery, which is in crisis. We have heard about a proposed programme of savage cuts in quotas for the Irish sea, the western approaches and the channel. I think that there is also probably a genuine threat to the six-mile limit in terms of open access. The abandonment of that limit would have a devastating effect on the Wash shellfish fishery. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned the very important point about Spain and Portugal having access to the North sea from 1 January 2003. He rightly pointed out that their quota share arrangements will limit their catch to non-quota species. However, there will, of course, be a significant by-catch of quota species, which is a serious concern.
	I believe that the time has come for us not merely to reform the CFP, but scrap it completely and replace it with a series of bilateral arrangements between member states. If we continue to proceed as we are now, it will not work. We will be tinkering with a system that is fundamentally flawed. We must now move forward with a much more radical policy. That view has been expressed to me by most of the fishermen in King's Lynn and west Norfolk.
	In the short time that remains, I should like to say a few words about the Wash inshore fishery, which is crucial to our local community. The main species of catch are shrimps, cockles, whelks, mussels and crabs. Forty boats and about 100 crew are involved in the King's Lynn fishing fleet. I think that the Minister knows that, as he visited the fleet during the previous Parliament. He will know that for every job at sea, there will probably be four jobs on land. On that basis, about 500 jobs in total are dependent on the fishery, which is crucial to the local economy.
	As the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out very eloquently, we are not talking only about pure economics. The fishery is of huge symbolic importance. Some fishing families go back many generations. The Wash fishery and fishing folklore are deeply entrenched in the local psyche. He summed that up well.
	There are various threats to the fishery. Resources in the Wash are being depleted, especially the shrimp fishery. The Minister knows that, under current regulations, white fish boats that meet their quotas are allowed to diversify into the shrimp fishery on their existing licence. There appears to be widespread support for a licensing system for inshore fishermen. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
	Another important point relates to the structure of inshore fisheries. The legislation is too old. The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 and the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1967 need updating. The Minister knows that the 1966 Act is a rehashing of a 100-year-old Act. The legislation is therefore out of date, and the funding of sea fisheries committees badly needs reconsidering. Since 1966, extra responsibilities have been placed on the fisheries committees, especially environmental responsibilities, with no extra resources to accompany them. It is time for a new Bill to amalgamate legislation on sea fisheries boards so that they can address those extra responsibilities.
	Other serious issues affect the Wash fishery, especially dredging, cable laying and the potential development of offshore energy in the form of wind farms. All have serious ecological side effects for marine ecosystems. They unsettle the sea bed and the silt-over of breeding grounds has a profound effect on shellfish habitats.
	There has been much controversy about dredging. Although everyone feels strongly that dredging to replenish sea defences, for example the Skegness to Mablethorpe section of coastal defences, is acceptable, it is not acceptable to dredge sand and gravel for export. Roughly 30 per cent. of all offshore dredging is of minerals and sand for export. That is unacceptable. We are considering a delicate marine ecosystem. If dredging helps to support local communities and to sort out sea defences, that is one matter. But the commercial export of minerals is another.
	As the Minister knows, the Crown estates have been through the pre-qualification process. The wind farms need permission from the Department of Trade and Industry, and I presume that there will be a public inquiry and that the Secretary of State will have the final say. However, on the pre-qualification site allocation, King's Lynn wind farm will have 60 turbines and the Cromer site will have 30. I accept that the benefits in renewable energy will be substantial. We must look increasingly to renewable energy. However, there are serious drawbacks for the Wash fishery.
	We must consider the construction phase for 60 large turbines. It will mean substantial disruption to fisheries. The completed turbines will be surrounded by exclusion zones. I have not worked out the exact square mileage for 60 turbines, but we are considering a substantial area of fishery in the Wash. The location of the turbines will therefore be crucial. If they are located in the wrong position, we could do irreparable harm to the shrimp fishery, the whelk, cockle and mussel fishery off King's Lynn and the crab fishery off Cromer. That damage would have a profound effect on an important community in my constituency. I ask the Minister to look carefully at that.
	I said a moment ago that this resource is vital to the local economy. It is essential, particularly, at a time when the wider economy is starting seriously to suffer from the downturns in manufacturing, and in the telecoms and tech sectors. Jobs are being lost across the board in those sectors in west Norfolk, and elsewhere in Norfolk and Suffolk. We are also suffering from an appalling downturn in agriculture. It is crucial that this local fishing community is given maximum priority. It is part of our local heritage, and also forms an important part of our national heritage, which is why it is essential that it should be protected and maintained. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Vera Baird: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), because I cannot stay for the end of the debate.
	I, too, want to scale down, and I invite the Minister to take the view from my constituency, Redcar, which has one of the smallest fishing fleets. We have nine cobles, which are less-than-10-metre boats that are launched afresh each day from the beach. They fish primarily for shellfish, but also for cod, Dover sole and nephrops.
	For my briefing, I owe much to Mr. David Horsley, an executive member of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations from my locality. I am also indebted to him for a well learned bit of wisdom. When I said to him, during what he must have suspected was one of my early fishing conversations, that I knew that nephrops were important to him, he said, "Why, pet, if you're going to talk to us, you're going to have to learn to call 'em prawns, like we do."
	The fleet fishes using gill netting, and long lines, and some of the small boats trawl. The less-than-10-metre boat fleet gets an annual quota from DEFRA of the TAC for each relevant fish. It has already received notice that this year's quota has run out. From 14 January to 30 April 2002, it will be banned from landing any Dover sole. There is a proposed further cut of 25 per cent. in the TAC for Dover sole and, unless there is a variation in the DEFRA quota to the less-than-10-metre boat fleet, that will have a great impact on it.
	This argument has to be put into the economic context in which the fleet works. It has an approximate annual catch value of between £20,000 and £40,000. That is an annual input before any costs such as diesel, maintenance, shared hard-standing—because the boats are often out of the sea—and security from urban risks. Let us compare and contrast that with larger boats, which can catch up to £50,000 worth of fish from four or more days at sea. The larger boats obviously have higher costs, but the relative economic positions are clear from those figures.
	Relatively and absolutely, small-boat fishermen in Redcar live hand to mouth. In that situation, they could easily be unbalanced and tipped into inviability, and they therefore merit particular consideration. A sustainable fisheries policy means taking measures to sustain fish stocks. It also means taking measures to sustain the fishing industry, so that its contribution to the local and national economy can continue.
	A further problem that my constituents see on the horizon is the increase in mesh sizes in January from 100 mm to 120 mm for trawling. Large modern trawlers can drag their huge nets faster than an unladen coble can steam at full power. The mesh, heavy enough to remain rigid at a gauge of 110 mm, cannot be towed by a small boat at a speed sufficient to keep it rigid. The weight of the mesh does not allow the boat to get sufficient weigh on, so the mesh is not rigid but opens and closes, allowing the catch to slip through. Thus, for a small boat, the effect of an increase in mesh sizes goes beyond that for a large boat and it has a particular and perhaps unforeseen, but certainly disproportionate, effect on small-boat men.
	In January, mesh sizes for gill nets will be upped from 4.75 mm to 5.25 mm. That will have a much more straightforward impact on those fishermen, because, inshore, they take smaller fish. There will also be a significant and deep impact on their takings. They are concerned, too, about the revival of the Minister's intention to impose shellfish licences on static gear at a cost that, at their subsistence earnings level, is meaningful.
	A primary concern is that those fishermen fish for prawns, as I am learning to call them, at the west edge—a location in the North sea 15 miles offshore and hence not protected by the 12-mile limit. Access will soon be available to the French and the Spanish, who will not pay the costs of a British licence and will therefore be given a worrying economic advantage.
	I must mention the importance of the fishermen in Redcar, which is primarily not a fishing port, but a small seaside resort backed by a poor, post-industrial area suffering from economic decline and social deprivation. The Redcar fishermen sell their fish direct from the coble, having been tractored up to the back of the sands on the esplanade. That is an attractive feature of Redcar's appeal as a resort.
	People travel from further south and east in Cleveland and from Teesside, south Durham and north Yorkshire to buy freshly caught fish and, of course, to enjoy the picturesque spectacle. They stroll along the esplanade and are attracted to the shops, cafes, garages, amusement arcades and museums. They also pay to park and drink in the pubs. The point is clear: the fishing industry is, first, an integral part of the culture of a sea town and, secondly, engenders business for the town far beyond the value of the fishermen's earnings in a location in which every pound of local income is important to local people.
	I must say again that there are general and specific problems for such a small fleet of small-boat inshore fishermen and I invite my hon. Friend the Minister, on behalf of everyone in the community I represent, to give all possible assistance to Redcar's highly valued fishermen.

Michael Weir: Like the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), I represent a small fishing port, which is in the heart of my constituency. Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember when Arbroath was a bustling fishing port, but it has been in decline for a number of years to the extent that few boats fish out of it. Of those, three have applied to be decommissioned under the Scottish scheme, leaving very few still working. However, Arbroath still has a vibrant fish processing industry, and when we discuss the future of the fishing industry we should not forget that it sustains a great deal of onshore employment. Any Member who represents a fishing area also represents many fish processors.
	My constituency is famous for the Arbroath smoky, the raw material of which is the haddock, so I am interested to note that the scientific evidence going before the Commission contains a recommendation for a considerable increase in haddock quota. That is welcome, but given the way in which the Commission has used other scientific evidence before it, I am apprehensive about whether it will ever come to pass. It should also be noted that, even if the haddock quota increases, levels would return to those fished in the mid-1990s, which were far below historic levels, so there is hardly cause for great celebration.
	Over the past few years, there has been a problem with the continual supply of fish to the fish processing industry because of quota difficulties. That has affected my constituency, as some processors have been unable to obtain supplies and a main Arbroath smoky producer stopped making them because it could not obtain a consistent haddock supply. As a result, Arbroath smokies are now produced by small outfits.
	We should bear it in mind that quotas are important not just to offshore fishing, but to onshore industry. A steady supply throughout the year is, perhaps, even more important to processors than to fishermen. Much of the fish coming into Arbroath comes from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and from Aberdeen. It is transported by road, but that involves considerable cost.
	I hope that when he discusses this in Brussels, the Minister will remember that for every job at sea there are numerous jobs on land—many in rural communities—that rely on those jobs at sea for a sustainable future.

Keith Simpson: We have been fortunate enough to hear, I think, 14 excellent speeches from Back Benchers, some of which had to be short. There was a common theme: the speakers represented fishing communities, and spoke on their behalf. A number emphasised the fact that we were discussing not just an industry but a community. One referred to mining. I come from a farming rather than a fishing community, but I too appreciate the point.
	Members have put to the Minister the view from the fishing ports, and we all hope that he will convey that view at the important meeting that will take place on 17 December.
	Strong views were expressed, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), about the general nature of the common fisheries policy. Undoubtedly there must be reform at the very least, if not radical change. I do not want to concentrate on that because she made the necessary points. In the short time available, I want to ask the Minister two or three specific questions, because it is important for him to flag up Members' concerns at the meeting.
	The first of those concerns, which the Minister himself admitted was causing anxiety, is the proposal for cuts in quotas. He rightly emphasised not just that we should question it for the scientific reasons adduced by a number of Members, but that it was unacceptable to fishing communities whom we, the politicians, must persuade of the efficacy of a policy proposed by the European Union as well as our Government. It is possible to put a lot of force behind Government policy and EU policy, but if the fishing communities reject proposals out of hand we are in dangerous waters. I know that his time is limited, but I hope that he will specify at least some of the arguments that he may advance, apart from his questioning of the science.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton expressed strong views about the CFP's appalling impact on the environment. It not only affronts tens of thousands of EU citizens but is totally counterproductive. I suspect that, with the exception of one or two bad fishermen, the fishing community rejects it as well. I should like to know what the Minister will say about that.
	Finally, there is the whole business of compensation for fishermen, particularly in relation to the decommissioning of fishing vessels. The Minister and I were on a Committee debating a statutory instrument dealing with that. Our Scottish colleagues touched briefly on compensation in Scotland today, but perhaps the Minister will say whether all the compensation relating to English vessels has been taken up, and whether there is a queue for future compensation. That will be an issue that will come back and hit us again.
	I wish the Minister well on 17 December and I hope that he will be able to address the problems raised by hon. Members. I look forward to further debates in the House next year on the issue and I am sure that we will have a robust discussion of the common fisheries policy. He will have had notice of some aspects of the argument from our side.

Elliot Morley: I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their kind remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister should ask for the leave of the House to speak a second time.

Elliot Morley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate. I am not used to both opening and winding up these days.
	One thing that does not change about the debates is their seriousness. Of all the debates in which I participate, this is one of the few where we have a genuine, thoughtful discussion about serious issues, such as fisheries management and conservation, the importance of the fishing industry in a regional context and all the other points that we have heard in the course of the debate. Not least of those was that made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) about onshore interests, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and other hon. Members.
	I have so many points written down that we could have another whole debate on them, but I shall do my best to address them. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has a long history of involvement in the fishing industry and great knowledge of it. He, and several other hon. Members, asked about what would happen with regard to access in 2003. We should not forget that the quota is the key issue and that that is why the issue of relative stability is so important. There is very little in the North sea that is not a quota stock. It would not be economic for any fishing vessel that does not have a real commercial quota to take all the trouble of steaming all the way to the North sea to fish. By-catch is monitored and would not count in that fishery towards establishing a track record, so there is no advantage in a by-catch. I cannot see any commercial inducement for anyone to enter the North sea when that changes.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of the 2.9 per cent. cod allocation from north Norway, which is part of the European Economic Area agreement. That is a legal agreement and forms part of the relative stability for the range of quotas that we have. I hope that that reassures him. He also raised the important issue of rising sea temperatures, which we take seriously. We are carrying out research on such matters as the decline in plankton, but it is important not to try to look for scapegoats.
	We cannot escape the fact that the biggest pressure on fish stocks comes from fishing. That is not to say that we do not take into account, for example, the impact of seals, although that impact is complex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes stated. We have little evidence that seals have much impact on commercial fish stocks, but the research is being done. The same is true of power stations. I have been looking at some figures on power station intakes—that is the kind of person I am—and considering the fish by-catch that is sucked into the intakes. The figures are fairly low, but measures can be taken—such as bubble streams—to minimise the problem. I expect power stations to implement those measures because I take the problem seriously.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) questioned whether the demonstrations on fishing were before the aid package was announced in Scotland, and I have checked the facts in the Library. The flotilla sailed on 6 March and the aid package was announced on 8 March. I know that the Minister wanted me to put that on the record. Will the debate or the information that I have supplied help in his examination of the migration of species, especially cod? Will that information be useful in establishing whether that migration can be substantiated or whether it is anecdotal? It is a widespread belief among fishing communities.

Elliot Morley: The migration of species is a widespread belief—and I had made a note to myself to reply to the hon. Gentleman on the matter, which I know that he was very keen to get on the record. All I can say is that, from my close and friendly contacts with the Scottish Executive, I am aware that the package was being discussed for some time. I suspect that it was being discussed even before the flotilla, of which the hon. Gentleman was part, sailed down the Forth.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby also referred to aggregate dredging, as did a number of hon. Members. These days, any new application for a licence must go through a thorough environmental impact assessment. That will take account of the impact on the local fishing industry and whether the area is a spawning area or important for shellfish. If the study finds that the impact would be detrimental, the application is turned down. Applications have been turned down for that reason, and I emphasise that we take into account the impact of activities on the fishing industry.
	Finally, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have commissioned a new research vessel for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. It is under construction at present—and in a British shipyard, I am glad to say.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) always takes a sensible and pragmatic approach to reform of the CAP, which is a matter of what is achievable. He also emphasised his support for multi-annual quota, which I share. I support, too, the concept of banking and borrowing, which has been used quite successfully in the south-west.
	The hon. Gentleman also emphasised the need for the industry and science to work together. I agree, and believe that the industry's involvement is important. It has an important contribution to make, which I take very seriously, as do the scientists in my Department. We have worked hard in the past few years to involve the industry more in discussions and decisions. Recently, we invited industry representatives to sail with CEFAS on our research ships and to work alongside our scientists. I am sure that that experience was mutually beneficial: the industry representatives watched the scientists work and saw the techniques that they used, and I understand that the scientists found very helpful the representatives' advice about matters such as net repairs and setting nets.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) emphasised the importance of the prawn fishery to his port in North Shields. I know that port and the industry well, and I repeat that I think that the Commission's suggestion about the scale of the cut in the nephrops quota is not justified by the science. It would have a devastating effect on the prawn industry, and I assure him that I take very seriously the points that he made. They will certainly guide me in the negotiations to come.
	The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is a fixture in these debates, as he has been a Member of Parliament for a long time. Although it is fair to say that the process of these debates is largely similar year to year, different issues and priorities arise every time. I am used to seeing hon. Members posture in debates, but the hon. Gentleman's description of posturing fish—although interesting—was new to me.
	However, I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that things have changed in the Council of Ministers. Less of the horse trading—or sea horse trading—mentioned by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) goes on. It will not be easy to get the Commission to shift position on some of the matters that have been raised, as it is acting according to what it believes to be the basis of sustainability.
	There is a genuine motivation behind what the Commission is doing, and I would not want to criticise that. I simply believe that it is not interpreting the science correctly on a number of points and not thinking through the implications of moving beyond the science in a range of stocks, particularly in a mixed fishery. We want to emphasise those issues to the Commission so that it will think about them and, I hope, make changes.

Ann Winterton: Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Commission can deliver now when it has failed to do so over the past 19 years?

Elliot Morley: It is hard to put the blame completely on the Commission. It has to take its share of the blame and, indeed, it was open and honest in the Green Paper about the failures of the common fisheries policy. The people who should take the blame are Fisheries Ministers from a range of countries who have refused, over the years, to follow the science. They have been reluctant to go against the undoubted impact on their industries and have talked up the quota over and above the scientific advice. That has to stop. That attitude has changed within the Council of Ministers because it is not sustainable and we are still paying a price for it now with regard to the desperate state of many stocks. Even stocks that are not in their recovery position are on the borderline of sustainability in relation to their biomass. Every year, what is being taken away for the commercial catch should be increasing the biomass.
	We must address these tough issues. Over the years, people have ducked them because they are so difficult. If we are not careful, we will have no fishing industry in this country and will be in a situation similar to Canada. Whatever has been said—and there are some unknowns in the Canadian situation, which I would not dispute—the principal reason that the cod stocks were wiped out was overfishing.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made some pertinent points about the history of the common fisheries policy and the involvement of the previous Government, which we all noted. He raised the issue, which has been put to me by a number of fishermen, about whether cod have migrated further north because of changing sea temperatures. We do not rule out any kind of environmental change. Our scientists have a whole range of sampling points, including the northern North sea, and they will take these figures into account.
	I take the views of the fishing industry seriously. They are the ones out at sea and they have a valid contribution to make. Indeed, much of the science is based on catch records and the fishing patterns of the industry. I will ensure that the figures that the hon. Gentleman presented are considered very carefully by our scientists.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) raised a number of issues about the industry in the Irish sea. I understand the worries about the scale of the proposed cuts in haddock. I also understand the concerns about twine thickness, although I can reassure her and her industry that we are not looking to apply standards that mean that her industry would have to have a different twine thickness. They can continue to use their present twine thickness, which is environmentally friendly.
	All the evidence that we have and the surveys that we have carried out, including surveys in the eastern part of the Irish sea with British and Belgian beam trawlers, show that the main spawning cod concentrations are in the western side of the Irish sea. That will be closed in the coming spawning season, and it will be closed to beam trawlers as well—so they will be kept away from the cod concentrations. However, we have little evidence that the concentration is on the eastern side.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) spoke about the Shetland box, which is of great regional importance. I was glad that the Commission, in its Green Paper, accepted the continuation of the Shetland box and, indeed, the Irish box. I recognise the regional importance of the fishing industry to Orkney and Shetland. As he said, I have visited the islands on a number of occasions and had a chance to talk to his industry. I always appreciate the opportunity to go there and chat to the very far-sighted and progressive industry.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's points about a co-operative venture to buy up quota and lease it on commercial terms, which has also been considered in Cornwall and other areas. As long as it is a commercial operation and does not discriminate against other regions, I am sure that it can meet state aid rules and I look forward with interest to the outcome of the current investigation. I am sure that the Commission will be sympathetic to the way that it has been operated in the past.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) represents two important east coast fishing ports. Cod is, of course, an important catch there. He raised several points, including the impact of horsepower and I wholly accept the comments of his constituent, Mr. Arnold Locker. I shall be seeing a great deal of Mr. Locker in his NFFO role in forthcoming months. No doubt he will make his case clear to me.
	Effort control has not yet been agreed. It has not been decided whether it will be a feature of the cod recovery plan in the North sea. I realise that people are worried about that. We shall need to talk to the industry about the issue and keep it involved. I also know of my hon. Friend's concerns about 120 mm nets in a mixed fishery. Mesh size is important and we should think about it carefully, but it will be difficult to move to 120 mm in one go. That is why I have argued for a phased approach.
	I understand my hon. Friend's point about industrial fishing. I am a long-standing opponent of industrial fishing and my views have not changed. Human consumption should always take precedence in fisheries management. I expect to see a reduction in the TAC for sand eels in the negotiations. I support the 20 per cent. reduction. There may be attempts to raise it again, but I assure the House that I shall support the Commission on that particular reduction, because we need to introduce it.
	We are working with the Danes on by-catch. I accept the dangers of excessive by-catch as reported in Fishing News. I notice that the Danes suspended the licence of the vessel concerned. That is a draconian power that we do not have in this country, and I was pleased to see the Danes using it.
	The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) also spoke about scientific advice and withdrawal. It is important that the industry concentrates on quality, not quantity. We want to encourage that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) stressed that the fishing industry has a cultural and social importance. The industry is important to him locally. He raised the issue of the plaice quota, and I was pleased to hear of the responsible attitude of the industry in his area. I shall certainly take that seriously.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) spoke about CFP reform. It is important that we try to address that realistically. At present, all inshore boats must have a licence—we are very keen on that. I understand the pressure for review of the legislation on sea fish committees. I am sympathetic, but it is a question of finding parliamentary time. That discussion will continue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an excellent speech on the needs of the inshore sector. She spoke about the differences in the horsepower of large vessels and expressed the concerns of fishermen in her area about shellfish licences, although I think that such licences are in their interest. The majority of the inshore sector support them.
	The hon. Member for Angus expressed concern about Arbroath smokies. I should not want them to be threatened in any way. He made an important point about the impact on the onshore industry if supplies were limited.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) made several points, some of which I shall have to deal with on another occasion. There has been enormous interest in the decommissioning scheme; the money will certainly be fully utilised. In fact, it is likely that the scheme will be oversubscribed—as, I suspect, will the Scottish industry scheme.
	I point out to the hon. Member for Congleton—as I did to her predecessors—that it is all very well to talk about national control, but what does it mean? I have never been clear about the meaning of the Conservative concept of national control, and nor has the industry. The industry believes that sensible reform—in which it is engaged—is the way forward. That is why it supports our position and that of other parties.
	We are seeking that reform pragmatically and sensibly. Unless it is undertaken in that way, we should be completely isolated—like the hon. Lady's party during the last Parliament. There would be no support and we would make no progress. I believe that we can address some of the serious weaknesses of the CFP. We can make it better. We can take into account the needs of the industry and bring about that reform.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DOWNVIEW PRISON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]

Crispin Blunt: I am very pleased to be able to secure this debate on Her Majesty's prison Downview. The debate is extremely timely this week because it coincides with the retirement of Downview's governor, Mr. Bob Chapman, and it provides an opportunity for me to put on record my appreciation of his service to Downview, its staff and its inmates during the past few difficult weeks and his lifetime's commitment to public service.
	The debate follows a meeting that I had yesterday with the Minister and the Director General of the Prison Service. I have to say, and I suspect that the Minister will agree, that it was perhaps not the most satisfactory meeting that a Member of Parliament will have ever had with the Minister. I hope that the perhaps at times disagreeable tone of our discussions will not be replicated here, and I wish to conduct this debate in that spirit.
	The issue arises because of Downview's change in role from a male to a female prison and the way in which that decision was made and handled by the Prison Service. I want to focus first on the wider issues for the Prison Service that relate to the way in which the decision was handled and then to deal with the specific issues that relate to Downview's future as a prison for female inmates.
	No one disputes the fact that the Government and the Prison Service face a problem in the steady and relentless increase in the number of women sent to prison. The exchange that I had yesterday with the Minister on the number of women prisoners was rather sterile, and I hope that we do not return to that issue in detail; suffice it to say that on the basis of the figures that I have received from the Minister in parliamentary answers, especially on 7 November, there appears to be a relentless increase of about 8 or 9 per cent. in the size of the women prison population, year on year.
	I am slightly concerned that the decision-making process in the Prison Service currently appears to be based on a projected increase of 4.5 per cent. I want to place on record what I said privately to the Minister yesterday: there is a problem for the Minister and the Prison Service, and I hope that they will re-examine it. If they do not do so, the sort of decision making that has led to so many problems at Downview will continue. The problem has also occurred at two other prisons whose role has changed from male to female very recently—at Send and, most recently, at Buckley hall in the north-west.
	I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak directly to the Minister and the director general and to put my concerns directly to them, but I am afraid that my conclusion from that meeting is that serious concerns remain about the way in which the decision-making process works in the Prison Service. Downview illustrates the problem, and it had to deal with its consequences.
	In May this year, the Prison Service was contemplating changing prison roles, and the area manager informed the governor of Downview that it was not one of the prisons being considered. Obviously, it came as a surprise when it was announced by written answer on 17 July that Downview would indeed be re-roled. I understand that the governor had only a week's notice of that decision.
	On the basis of all the information that I have been able obtain, there is no evidence that the director general considered the proper information in coming to that decision, which was formally endorsed by the Minister. There should have been a proper cost-benefit analysis of exactly how much changing the prison's role would cost the Prison Service and therefore the public. I believe that that decision was taken by the higher management, the director general and the Minister in ignorance of the facts on the ground.
	Yesterday, I asked the Minister for the advice, on whatever basis she would like to provide it, that she and the director general received in taking that decision, which was published on 17 July. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some comfort when she replies, because I want to be reassured about the quality of management in the Prison Service. Given all the challenges that the director general and Ministers face in managing the service, I am happy to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt.
	This is a unhappy story. The decision was announced in a written answer on 17 July and, on 25 July, the governor got the staff together to tell them that the prison had to start emptying itself of male prisoners at the beginning of August. That process was to be completed by the end of August. I am informed that pressure was placed on the Prison Service to empty the prison immediately and that some people wanted to send a fleet of buses to move the male prisoners out straight away. Within one month, the prison started to fill up with female prisoners.
	On 3 October, the board of visitors was so concerned that it wrote to the Home Secretary. It also wrote to me to draw my attention to the problem; I regret that it had to do so because the Prison Service did not realise in whose constituency the prison sits. My engagement with the prison has been entirely pro-active since I made a visit to it in 1998. I also went there on a later occasion when I visited it in conjunction with a visit to the prison across the road at High Down. I suspect that I did not receive any information from the Home Office or the Prison Service about Downview because they had failed to plot it in the correct constituency. I hope that that mistake has been put right, and I have accepted the apology that the Minister made on behalf of the Prison Service.
	To a degree, my concern arises out of my visit to the prison in 1998. Category C and category D prisoners were placed alongside each other and the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust—RAPT—programme, which was founded in Downview, was working effectively. Prisoners elsewhere in the prison estate were queuing up to get to Downview to get on to the addiction programmes, to become clean of drugs and to be able to return to society free from the problem that probably resulted in their going to prison in the first place.
	I have been concerned by the changes that have taken place to the prison since 1998 and since 2000 when category C and category D prisoners were no longer placed alongside each other. The institution was working well and I had every reason to believe that it was a flagship for the Prison Service. The then governor, Colin Lambert, frequently appeared at events—not least, here in the House—to promote the RAPT programme and the excellent education and rehabilitation work that took place in the prison. I had no reason to believe that it did not represent a decoration for the Prison Service.
	Tragically, things began to change when the Prison Service began to remove category D prisoners from the prison and to turn it into solely a category C prison. The desire of people to get on and through the programmes has regrettably changed in the past year as a younger cohort of prisoners go into the prison.
	The chief inspector of prisons noted that, in the wake of those decisions, the Prison Service had not seemed to have identified properly a clear role for the prison. It is a great shame that the Prison Service did not, at a senior level, understand just how effective an institution it had in Downview. That partially explains why I am so exercised by the decision to take it out of the male estate and away from the role that it had so successfully pursued.
	The real concern, however, is about the cack-handed way in which the Prison Service managed the change. To give people in a prison private notice of only one week about its change in role is unacceptable. That is not just my view; it is the view of the board of visitors. In its report on Downview to the Home Secretary, it said:
	"We consider this to be gross mismanagement on the part of the Prison Service, displaying total lack of concern, and indeed contempt, for human issues. Whilst we fully accept the need to adapt to a changing population, such changes can not have occurred almost overnight. Assuming there is any planning at all at Head Office, it would seem reasonable to conclude that it gives itself the luxury of time and then expects the people at operational level to act almost instantaneously."
	It goes on to say:
	"All this is now, with no warning, being followed by a complete change of direction at breakneck speed. We consider this to be an extreme example of poor strategic management on the part of the Prison Service."
	I wholly agree with that conclusion.
	From what I have seen—I hope that this impression is corrected—the decision-making process inside the Prison Service is centralised and autocratic, and responds almost directly to crisis management. At the moment, I do not have confidence in the management of the Prison Service. I know that the director general has just been reappointed. I hope that the Minister, and the director general in the years to come, will reassure me that my lack of confidence in the Prison Service management, especially with regard to the two prisons in my constituency, is misplaced.
	The victims of the Prison Service's decisions are the staff and the inmates. I note that the director general has given a reassurance that all the male inmates who were so rapidly displaced from Downview have completed their programmes of education and rehabilitation at other institutions. I have tabled a written parliamentary question on that. As the director general has given me an answer, I look forward to the Department confirming that that is the case.
	I want to express my gratitude to the Minister for the compliment that she paid the governor and the staff on the way in which they coped with the decision that the Prison Service imposed on them. In her letter to me of 13 November, she said:
	"I am extremely grateful to the Governor and his staff for the efficient and professional way in which the changes are being implemented."
	I am sure that the governor is grateful for her kind words.
	For my own part, I very much regret the retirement of Bob Chapman in the middle of the process this week. The timing is most unfortunate. I understand that the staff equally regret that, and that they gave him a generous and moving send-off. I commend them for the support that they gave him in the past difficult months. I am sure that they will continue to give that support to the new governor in the months ahead.
	Let me turn to the future challenge for Downview. One of the satisfactory outcomes of my meeting with the Minister and the director general yesterday was the director general's promise that in three years' time Downview will be a state-of-the-art prison for female inmates. I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
	I want the Minister to address specific issues that affect Downview. There is real concern about the suicide risk among women prisoners. They are at greater risk of suicide than male prisoners. Apparently some 40 per cent. of female inmates are identified as being at risk of suicide or self-harm. That is a particular interest of Jean Casale, the mother of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), who is in the Chamber. I commend her for the work that she has done.
	I also commend the work of the rest of the board of visitors, led by Simon Morrison and Terry Cushing who accompanied me when I visited the prison on 26 October. They do an unpaid and unsung job, which is of critical importance to our community and, in particular, the prisoners.
	On the future of Downview, will the Minister confirm that the prison will be a local prison, taking remand and recently sentenced women prisoners, which is what it was designed to be when the director general took his decision, on the basis of its location? The director general will be all too aware, as is the Minister, of the requirement to get the prison into proper shape so that it can carry out that role. The first thing that I want is for the Minister to confirm that that will be its role. Will she also confirm that C wing, which has two thirds of the prison's capacity, will be emptied so that it can be properly rebuilt and turned into state-of-the-art accommodation for women prisoners, as the director general promised?
	In my judgment, the comparison between High Down, across the road from Downview, makes it clear that if Downview is to become a local prison, it will need a new reception centre. I do not believe that the existing facilities are adaptable, and I would be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that she will examine that issue. The medical centre and prisoners' health requirements have been of grave concern to the board of visitors, and I hope that the Minister is able to reassure me that there will be proper, separate health provision for women inmates, who, on average, need more health care than male prisoners.
	When will the Prison Service reach the stage at which it no longer requires detached duty officers to serve at Downview, as they have done for the past few months, at some considerable expense to the service? May I draw to the Minister's attention the condition of the buildings that house the education facilities? They are temporary buildings with a roof that leaks on to IT equipment, which is obviously not satisfactory. Frankly, they need rebuilding if this is to become a state-of-the-art facility.
	I am grateful to have had the attention of the director general and the Minister focused on the prison, and I hope that that will continue until the work to turn it into a state-of-the-art institution is complete, which, with the scale of rebuilding that is required, will take two or three years. I wholly regret the way in which the decision was reached, and I hope that lessons have been learned.

Beverley Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to put on record some of the facts surrounding the issues raised by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in this debate and, more publicly, on previous occasions. As he said, I have had several brief discussions with him and provided information in answer to a number of parliamentary questions. Yesterday, the director general and I met him to discuss some of his main concerns. Although I shall try to answer some of his additional questions, I have nothing to add to the facts, but as I said, I welcome the opportunity to put them on record.
	I repeat to the hon. Gentleman publicly what I said to him yesterday and previously. Notwithstanding his remarks, to which I shall turn in a moment, I welcome his great interest in the prisons in his constituency. That is not something that every Member of Parliament demonstrates, and I do not criticise him for expressing his concerns; indeed, as I said, I welcome that interest. However, his interest does not entitle him to make wider allegations about management and decision making in the Prison Service. He may reach a conclusion from the limited perspective of his concern about a prison, but the director general and I have to take into account the condition of women prisoners throughout the prison estate and the Prison Service more generally. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand the decision in that context.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that it is essential to change prison accommodation from male to female to provide sufficient spaces for the increasing number of women who, as he acknowledged, are being committed to custody by the courts. Downview was selected on the basis of a range of criteria, including not only its geographical location relative to where in the country the demand for places was arising, but the availability of female staff and the ability to relocate the existing male population. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the Prison Service did not know of the quality of Downview as a prison for men. Clearly, the Prison Service was aware of that, as was I, but the factors that had to be taken into account to meet this need were many and varied, and decisions were not taken in the absence of knowledge about Downview.
	Unfortunately, the demand for prison places for women, which represents about 11 per cent. of all places between May 2000 and May 2001, increased sharply again in the middle of this year, with the result that Downview had to take in women prisoners faster than the Prison Service would have liked or, indeed, was planning for. That meant that, once the decision had been taken, there was no alternative to moving women prisoners in before all the desirable works had been completed. Those included some redecoration, changes to bathing and sanitation arrangements, the extension of in-cell electricity, and staff recruitment. I am glad to say that the changes to in-cell sanitation and much of the refurbishment have been completed. A suitable mix of male and female staff, including those with experience of working with women, has been achieved, as the hon. Gentleman says, by transferring staff from elsewhere on a temporary basis.
	The hon. Gentleman concludes from his experience at Downview that the haste resulted from mismanagement by the Prison Service, which should have foreseen the need and managed it better. As I said to him yesterday, although I accept that part of the process of change was not as we would have wanted, the reasons for it were outside the control of the Prison Service and were not due to mismanagement.
	In the three months between July and September, in the context of a general upward trend, the number of women in prison rose by 7 per cent. That represents an annualised increase of 30 per cent. That sharp increase, on top of an existing upward trend, was totally unexpected. The Prison Service had no indication that that would happen. The hon. Gentleman expressed surprise yesterday, but that can be the pace at which cumulative sentencing decisions make themselves known to us. The Prison Service is required to accept those prisoners committed to custody by the courts. We must make the best arrangements that we can, sometimes in difficult circumstances, to increase the availability of places—in this case, women's places—as a matter of urgency.
	The alternative of increasing overcrowding elsewhere in the prison estate was not acceptable because of the lack of privacy and the risk to the safety of women prisoners that it would present. As it was, women from the south-east of England were being sent to the far north of England, away from their families. That is another factor that we had to take into account. It would have been equally unacceptable to resort to the use of police cells for women prisoners, because of conditions, the lack of a regime of activities, the diversion of police resources, and so on. The alternatives were examined and found to be unacceptable across a range of objectives, including decency and contact with family.
	The seasonal slowdown that we usually experience in December is just beginning. The population at Downview has allowed us to stop taking new prisoners for the past two weeks—the first time that the rate of increase has allowed us any respite. In response to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions, I can confirm that we expect to be able to empty C wing quickly to allow the recruitment of permanent staff and the completion of works, subject to the population trend for December continuing as we expect.

Roger Casale: I understand that there were serious problems with the transition from a male to a female prison at Downview, and I am grateful for the action that my hon. Friend took after I, too, raised the matter in a written question. Through my mother, Mrs. Jean Casale, who is also my constituent and a member of the board of visitors, and Simon Morrison, the chair of the board of visitors, I have kept in regular contact about the situation at the prison. I am grateful for the steps that my hon. Friend has immediately taken. I understand that the situation is improving, to the extent that some women prisoners were offered the chance to go to another prison, but declined and said that they wanted to stay. There are important lessons for us to learn for the future from the experience of Downview. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for raising the matter.

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend. He, too, has raised the issue with me informally, and I know that he has taken a close interest in it. I am grateful for his interest and his remarks.
	With regard to the consequences for some of the male prisoners relocated from Downview, the transfer would clearly result in some disruption to their sentence planning. Of course, we regret that, but I can tell the hon. Member for Reigate and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) that, as far as possible, all prisoners were given the opportunity to express a preference for relocation. We had additional recategorisation boards and about 50 men were recategorised to category D. No prisoners had their security category increased as a result; as a temporary measure, a substantial group were moved to Wormwood Scrubs, where they were accommodated in a separate wing.
	I know that the hon. Member for Reigate is anxious that prisoners moved from Downview should not be prevented from completing any rehabilitation or education programmes that they were following. As he said, he has tabled a question on the matter, which is of immense concern to me too. He will understand that it will take some time to collate the information and I am not in a position to give him a detailed response today. However, we are putting the material together and I shall reply to him in due course.
	The hon. Gentleman made two points about what he felt was the mismanagement of the process by the Prison Service. He talked about the use of projections and the decision-making process. As I said yesterday, projections are not an exact science, but are produced as rigorously as possible by the Home Office. They are produced by independent statisticians, not Prison Service statisticians, who produce three variants—high, low and central—for us.
	The population trend in relation to projections is closely monitored and contingency plans are always in place and are periodically reviewed. It is not a matter of us not having plans in place and being surprised by changes in trends. Contingency plans are in place. Indeed, yesterday we detailed for the hon. Gentleman extensive plans for extra women's places, new prisons, new ready-to-use units and so on. In addition, we have had to re-role Downview and a number of other prisons. I explained to the hon. Gentleman that decision making is a robust and systematic process. The decision to re-role a prison is not taken lightly. The criteria for decision making and the way in which the process is executed are not unique to Downview, but are systematically applied to any similar situation. Downview, therefore, is no exception.
	I wish to join the hon. Gentleman in his congratulations to the staff, who have coped magnificently with the process of change. I accept that many members of staff are unsettled by the process, but I know that they have responded to demands and put the interests of prisoners first. However, I do not accept that the way that staff were treated was an abuse of authority or was overly centralised. Prison officers are subject to transfers as a condition of their employment; that is essential to make sure that we have the necessary flexibility to cater for the demands on the Prison Service. I make no apologies for that.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the important concern of health care. He is right that women's health care issues are different from men's. Indeed, the incidence, not of suicide, but certainly self-harm, is different. Since the prison re-roled, 35 prisoners have been identified as at risk, although there have been only 10 recorded incidents of self-harm. The staff have had to grapple with the issue of the difference between men and women. The population of women at Downview is similar to other populations of women prisoners; there is no over-representation of self-harm incidents as a result of the move. We are watching closely the impact on individual women.
	We plan that Downview should be an excellent women's prison. If the hon. Gentleman visits other women's prisons like Styal, he will see what we are aiming for. I have told him that C wing will be emptied. He mentioned education and reception facilities. I am aware of deficiencies in those buildings, and we are looking closely at those issues. On detached duty and recruitment, we will need staff on detached duty until we are able to complete the recruitment process. However, we are pressing on with that and I am confident that, in a few months, we will be in a position to have permanent staff at Downview.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.